Send Text Input

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

The description indicates a mutation (sending text), but the annotation 'readOnlyHint' is set to true, which contradicts the described behavior. The description does not address this inconsistency or provide any behavioral details beyond the contradictory implication.

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, front-loaded sentence of 14 words with no unnecessary information. It efficiently communicates the tool's core action and target.

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?

Despite good purpose clarity and conciseness, the description lacks usage guidance, does not resolve the annotation contradiction, and omits important behavioral context. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete for effective agent decision-making.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already describes both parameters adequately. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'literal text string' to a specific target 'whatever input field is currently focused on the device', which unambiguously identifies the tool's function. It also references the ECP endpoint, adding context.

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 the tool is used for sending text input to a focused field, but it does not provide any guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'keypress' or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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