keyboard_type

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

The description adds important behavioral disclosure beyond annotations: it states the tool fails rather than substituting unrepresentable characters, and that the VM remains locked requiring a vm_unlock call. These are not captured by the annotations (which only indicate basic mutability/destructiveness aspects). This gives the agent critical operational context for safe usage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then a critical operational note. Every clause adds value: the typing function, the failure behavior, and the lock/unlock requirement. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, failure mode, and a crucial locking side-effect. It omits what the tool returns or the exact effect of interval_ms, but the absence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The tool's complexity is low, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'text' parameter implicitly ('Type text...') but does not mention 'interval_ms' at all. The interval_ms parameter is left entirely to its name and schema constraints, providing incomplete meaning. The description does not fully clarify the purpose or units for interval_ms, which is a gap given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Type text with the active Windows 98 keyboard layout'. It also differentiates from sibling tools by noting it 'fails rather than substituting unrepresentable characters', which distinguishes it from more permissive typing tools. The function is unambiguous and distinct from keyboard_key, hotkey, or batch tools.

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 context: it types text, and includes an explicit follow-up instruction ('VM remains locked by this session; call vm_unlock when finished'). It does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance. The mention of failure on unrepresentable characters implies a usage caution but not a direct alternative.

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