type_text

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the clipboard fallback for non-ASCII characters and explains the xdotool issue with certain toolkits. This provides high transparency about the tool's behavior.

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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured, presenting key information upfront without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains core typing behavior and parameter references, but could mention 'instance' and 'observe' more explicitly.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'text' by explaining unicode behavior, and references click() for 'observe'/'settle_ms', but does not explain 'instance' or the exact semantics of 'observe'. Partial compensation.

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 types text at the focused field and specifies unicode-safe behavior, distinguishing between ASCII and non-ASCII handling. This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like press_keys.

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 gives good context on when to use this tool for typing, explaining the different methods for ASCII vs non-ASCII text. It references click() for observe/settle_ms parameters, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives among siblings.

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