Smart Type (AI) [Pro]

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by stating the sequence of actions (find, tap, type) and that it uses natural language input. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, what happens if field not found, or auth requirements.

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 sentences: one for purpose and an illustrative example. Zero wasted words. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given 3 required params, no output schema, and moderate complexity with natural language processing, the description covers the basic use case but omits details like supported field types or multi-device considerations.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a practical example and explains the 'field_description' parameter, but doesn't add deeper semantics beyond schema.

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 tool finds a field by natural language, taps it, and types text, distinguishing from type_text (which likely requires a locator) and smart_tap (tap only). The example reinforces the verb+resource pattern.

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 when you want to type into a field described by natural language, but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like type_text or find_element. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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