nanokvm_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 disclosure. It reveals the paste API mechanism, the 1024-character limit, and the language parameter behavior. It does not mention error handling for oversized text or unsupported characters, but it provides solid transparency for a simple text 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 brief and well-structured. It opens with the primary purpose, then adds the performance benefit, a critical limit, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 is simple with 2 parameters and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, usage context, constraints, and parameters. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., what happens on text overflow) but is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must provide all parameter meaning. The Args section explicitly explains 'text' as 'The text to type (max 1024 characters)' and 'language' as 'Keyboard layout - "" for US QWERTY, "de" for German.' This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Type text on the target machine via keyboard emulation.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like nanokvm_send_key (individual keys) and nanokvm_tap (mouse). The mention of the paste API further clarifies the exact mechanism.

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 use cases by stating the paste API 'is faster than individual key presses,' which suggests using this instead of send_key for text input. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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