vnc_type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the tool name-level behavior and does not explain how typing is performed, where input lands, whether it is single-line, or whether Enter is pressed. The schema covers the enter option, but the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 very short and free of filler, but its brevity is not particularly informative. It is closer to under-specification than to purposeful, well-structured content, since it adds little beyond the tool name.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needed to provide more orientation. It does not explain this tool's role among siblings, especially vnc_type_multiline, and does not clarify practical details such as whether text is typed into the focused VNC window. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'text' and 'enter' are already described meaningfully. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clear action ('Type') and a clear object ('text string'), so an agent can tell this tool sends text input. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling vnc_type_multiline or mention the VNC context, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus vnc_key_press, vnc_type_multiline, or vnc_screenshot. It also does not mention that text goes to the currently focused field, nor when the enter option should be enabled.

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