vroid_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the XTEST mechanism and the Proton mis-read issue, directly warns about caret independence, and explains the symptom of wrong-field typing. It also notes the effect of clear_first semantically. This is exemplary transparency for an input tool.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose statement, usage direction, and verification step. It front-loads the critical warning about clicking first. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds operational value, so it earns a high score rather than a 3.

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's complexity (keyboard input on a misbehaving client), the description covers prerequisites, mechanism, verification, and failure modes. Output schema exists, so return value details aren't needed. All information an agent needs to call it correctly and detect errors is present.

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 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The text parameter's escape sequence ('\n' for Return) is already in the schema. The description adds context about literal text and the clear_first behavior, which is beyond the schema's simple description. A high score because the description reinforces the meaning and clarifies usage in context.

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), resource (keyboard focus), and clearly distinguishes from siblings (vroid_click, vroid_key). The purpose is unmistakable: type text into the currently focused widget. The caveat about having no idea where the caret is clarifies its scope versus click.

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?

Explicitly instructs to click the field first (naming vroid_click as prerequisite), warns about XTEST versus Wayland issue, and mandates a screenshot afterwards to verify. It also identifies a specific failure mode (grayed-out primary button) and provides the verification step. This is complete when-to-use guidance with clear sequencing.

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