kasm_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the sensitive-data prohibition and the required human takeover, but says nothing about side effects on the live session, whether text submission occurs, 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?

Two tight sentences, well front-loaded: the action first, then the safety constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the safety handoff is covered, but the undocumented press_enter parameter and the absence of any note on session state or failure behavior leave real gaps.

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 only 33%: only session_id is documented in the schema. The description never explains text semantics or the press_enter boolean that presumably submits the input, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Type text into the focused field of the Kasm session.' This clearly separates it from siblings like kasm_key (keystrokes) and kasm_click, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides an explicit when-not rule with a fallback action: never type passwords, MFA codes, or payment details, and hand off to the owner instead. It lacks positive guidance on focusing a field first or when to prefer kasm_key, but the exclusion is clearly actionable.

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