Type text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful internals: ASCII text goes through 'adb input text' while other characters use clipboard paste, and it returns the resulting screen. It stops short of warning about side effects such as clipboard contents being overwritten or failure modes for unsupported characters.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before implementation detail and return behavior. Every sentence contributes information with no padding.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the ASCII/clipboard split, and the return ('resulting screen'). It omits error behavior and clipboard side effects, which is a minor gap given the schema fully documents every parameter.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented; the description adds only the hint that a selector can be tapped first, which the index/className/resourceId params already convey. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 target ('Type into the focused field') and clarifies the optional selector-tap prerequisite, so an agent can distinguish text entry from the sibling phone_tap. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives actionable context: use it for the focused field, and 'Optionally tap a selector first' tells the agent how to target a field that isn't focused yet. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g., use phone_tap for non-text targets).

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