send_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and purpose but does not mention whether the text replaces existing content, appends, or requires an element to be focused. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 action and context. There is no extraneous information, making it appropriately sized and easily parsed.

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 tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description alone must convey all necessary context. It provides the basic purpose but omits any details about expected behavior or side effects, leaving it slightly incomplete for a fully autonomous agent.

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, with the parameter 'text' already described as 'Text to send'. The tool description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, relying entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for schema-backed parameter documentation.

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 ('Send text input') and provides context ('for search fields, forms, etc.'). This identifies the tool's purpose as entering text, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like press_key, which also handles keyboard input.

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 phrase 'for search fields, forms, etc.' gives clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for text entry in UI fields. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, though the context is sufficient for a basic understanding.

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