input_text

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool simulates typing into the focused field, but it does not mention failure behavior, side effects, IME interaction, or what happens if no field is focused.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence about requiring the `text` parameter is slightly redundant given the schema already marks it as required, but it does add semantic clarification.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it: target, action, and parameter meaning. It could be slightly more complete by noting prerequisites or limitations, but it is not materially incomplete.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type, with no description coverage. The tool description compensates by explaining that `text` is the string to be typed, giving the single parameter its essential meaning.

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 a specific action—typing text—and names the target resource: the currently focused field on the connected Android device. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling input tools like input_keyevent, input_tap, and input_swipe.

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 when to use the tool: when text needs to be typed into a focused field. However, it does not explicitly advise against alternatives or mention cases where another input tool would be more appropriate, leaving some usage selection to inference.

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