qemu_keyboard_type

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

Annotations provide little behavioral context (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It adds that the text goes to the active QEMU display and is QEMU-monitor-compatible, but it does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, or whether the VM must be running. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. It front-loads the core action and target immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 input-injection tool, this is minimally viable: the schema covers the parameters and the description states the action. However, it lacks routing guidance, behavioral caveats, and a clear statement of when the active QEMU display is available, which leaves meaningful gaps for an agent selecting among many input sibling tools.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters. The parameter names 'vm_id' and 'text' are self-explanatory enough to avoid a 1, but the description does not clarify text format/encoding limits or how vm_id maps to the active display. The description should compensate for the schema gap and does not.

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 ('Type'), the resource ('basic QEMU monitor-compatible text'), and the target ('the active QEMU display'). It is distinguishable from mouse/command tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like qemu_keyboard_key or keyboard_type.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qemu_keyboard_key, keyboard_type, or qemu_hmp_command. The phrase 'basic text' implies a plain-text use case, but there are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or direction to a more appropriate sibling.

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