gtv_type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the IME method and lack of keycode mapping, but does not specify behavior when no field is focused, supported character sets, or potential side effects. It adds moderate behavioral context but lacks completeness.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information (action, target, method). Every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. It does not mention error handling or fallbacks, but for a straightforward text input tool, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'text' parameter, already describing it as 'Text to type into the focused field'. The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Type arbitrary text'), the target ('into the focused field'), and the method ('via IME'). It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'gtv_send_key' by noting 'no keycode mapping', making the purpose precise and unique.

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 when to use this tool (for direct text input) versus alternatives like gtv_send_key (for key presses). It does not explicitly state exclusions or name the sibling, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate.

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