ui_type

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

The description discloses the basic action of inputting text, and the annotations already indicate that this is a non-read-only operation (readOnlyHint false). However, the description adds no additional behavioral context, such as requiring a focused text field or what happens on failure.

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, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's function. There is no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, a clear schema, and existing annotations, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring a focused input) and does not mention return values or potential side effects beyond what annotations cover.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (text and udid), so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, and the baseline score of 3 applies when the schema is sufficiently documented.

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 'Input text into the iOS Simulator' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool types text into the simulator. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ui_tap and ui_swipe, which handle gestures.

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 implies usage for entering text into the simulator but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The usage context is clear from the action itself.

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