type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the prerequisite state (focused, open chat) but does not describe how 'paste' behaves vs typing, whether the text is submitted immediately, what the 'send' parameter controls behaviorally, or how backend variations (pydirectinput vs pyautogui) affect execution. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 short sentence that front-loads the purpose and prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and there's zero padding. It doesn't overexplain or repeat schema content. While it could add more behavioral context, its brevity is appropriate for a one-line tool.

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 has 3 parameters (one with a behavior-affecting enum backend), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is thin. An output schema exists, which covers return values, but the behavioral semantics of send and backend, the interaction between this tool and send_chat/press_key, and failure modes (unfocused chat) are all undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to operate reliably.

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 should compensate for the three parameters. However, it adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides: 'message' has min/max length, 'send' has a default, and 'backend' has an enum in the schema. The description's mention of 'paste' hints at how the message is entered but doesn't elaborate on send or backend semantics. With 0% coverage and multiple parameters, the description only marginally helps.

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 states the verb+resource+context clearly ('paste into an already-focused, already-open Sky chat box'), which defines what it does and distinguishes it from open_chat (opens the chat) and send_chat. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify how it differs from send_chat — both seem to involve delivering a message to the Sky chat box, which could confuse an agent about which to use.

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 the tool requires an already-focused and already-open chat box ('already-focused, already-open'), which conveys prerequisite context. However, it provides no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and doesn't differentiate from siblings send_chat or press_key, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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