type_unicode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral context by revealing platform-specific implementations and the 'when configured' condition for Android, which is not evident from the schema. However, it does not explain what happens if ADBKeyboard is not configured or other potential failure modes, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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?

The description is exceptionally concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides platform-specific context, and the third gives an explicit alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 essential behavior for a simple typing tool, including platform differences and the focused-field requirement. However, the 'device' parameter is not explained, and there is no mention of error conditions or prerequisites beyond field focus. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered, but the parameter gap and limited edge-case disclosure keep it from being fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. While 'text' is implicitly defined by 'Type unicode text', the 'device' parameter is not explained at all. The description fails to add enough semantic value for the device parameter, leaving a significant gap.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: it types unicode text into the focused field. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool type_text by explicitly recommending type_text() for plain ASCII, making its scope evident.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explicitly says to use type_text() for plain ASCII, and it explains platform-specific behavior (Android with ADBKeyboard, iOS with WDA), helping the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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