write_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses automatic resume if stopped, pause-state restoration, escaped/PETSCII token support, and the 64-byte request limit—all genuinely useful beyond the schema. It does not cover error behavior or side effects, but the core semantics are transparent.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by behavior, syntax support, and a hard limit. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no 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?

For a single-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers action, behavior, accepted token syntax, and size limit. It omits an explicit pointer to keyboard_input as the alternative for individual key presses, but nothing essential for making a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the text parameter has no schema description. The description compensates strongly by explaining what text may contain (escaped characters, PETSCII brace tokens, color names) and the 64-byte constraint, which is essential for constructing a valid request.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Types text into the C64.' Adds useful scope via auto-resume, token support, and byte limit. It is clearly oriented to text entry, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling keyboard_input.

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?

Provides clear context for when the tool is applicable—typing text, using PETSCII tokens, respecting a 64-byte limit—but gives no exclusions or explicit comparison to alternatives such as keyboard_input. Usage is mostly implied rather than directed.

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