type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the ~2.5 s/key cost, that events are real OS-level taps, the precondition that the keyboard must be visible, the supported character set, and that submit presses Go. It leaves out what happens with unsupported characters or on timeout, but the key behavioral traits an agent must plan around are present.

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?

Front-loads the mechanism and cost, then the character set, then the alternative — a sensible order with little waste. It is dense as a single run-on clause, but every element (speed, precondition, charset, submit, alternative) earns its place.

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?

The core purpose, cost model and alternative are complete for a 7-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, but the five synchronization parameters (delay_s, timeout, stable_for, wait_change, settle) are never addressed, leaving an agent guessing about waiting and failure behavior.

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 coverage is only 14% (1 of 7 params documented), so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for text (the supported character set: lower-case letters, digits, space and . - / : ( ) ; $ & @ ") and for submit ('set submit to press go'), but delay_s, timeout, stable_for, wait_change and the described-only settle have no explanation anywhere — four timing/synchronization knobs remain opaque.

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 (type) plus the exact mechanism (tapping on-screen keyboard keys, real key events) and names the sibling it is not ('For fast input use fill'). An agent can distinguish this from fill and key without opening either schema.

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 a hard precondition ('the on-screen keyboard ... must be showing') and an explicit alternative ('For fast input use fill'), which is the decision rule an agent needs. It stops short of saying exactly when the slow-but-real key events are required (e.g. apps that reject synthetic input), so the exclusion is implied rather than stated.

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