type_text

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses spaces support, non-ASCII transliteration, and the adb ASCII-only limitation. However, it does not state what happens if no input field is focused, which is a minor behavioral gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise sentences: main action first, then prerequisite, then limitation and alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the main action, usage prerequisite, limitation, and alternative for a simple tool with an output schema. It misses explaining the 'device' parameter and possible error conditions, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The 'text' parameter is well explained (accepts text, spaces supported, non-ASCII transliterated), but the 'device' parameter is not described. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate for both parameters; it covers text but not device, so it is partially adequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Type text') and its target ('the currently focused input field'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools, particularly type_unicode for full-fidelity emoji/CJK, and implies focus is a prerequisite.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly instructs to 'Tap an input field first to focus it' and directs users to type_unicode for non-ASCII input, providing both a clear when-to-use and an alternative. This is strong guidance for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.