adb_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It correctly implies stateful behavior (requires a focused field) though not explicitly. It doesn't disclose whether text replaces existing content, requires the field to be empty, or what happens on failure. For a write/intent tool with zero annotations, more behavioral context would help, but the core interaction is somewhat self-evident.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It states the key action and target in 8 words. Appropriately concise, though it could earn the extra length to add usage guidance.

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 2-param tool with a simple action (typing text), the description is arguably near-sufficient. No output schema exists, so return behavior isn't required. The main gap is the missing precondition about focus and interaction with adb_key. Given moderate complexity and zero annotations, it's adequate but could state the 'must be focused first' precondition explicitly.

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 50%, with the 'serial' parameter having a description but 'text' being undocumented. The description adds minimal param semantics—it conveys that 'text' is the string to type, which roughly matches its name. But it doesn't clarify formatting, escaping rules, or limits for the text parameter beyond what's inferable.

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 'Type a string into the focused field' uses a specific verb (type) and resource (focused field), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like adb_tap, adb_key, and adb_swipe. However, it doesn't clarify what 'focused field' means or how text entry compares to adb_key which may also handle input. It's clear but minimal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a field must already be focused, likely via prior tap), and doesn't distinguish from adb_key or other input-related siblings. The description implies a precondition but doesn't state it explicitly.

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