Type text

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden, but it only states the primary action. It doesn't disclose whether text is appended or replaced, what happens if no field is focused, or if any special characters are supported.

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?

One sentence, exactly as concise as the tool needs. Every word earns its place and it entirely avoids redundant or technical fluff.

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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no nested complexity, this description materially cover: main function, target verb, and target resource. It doesn't include all edge-case behavior, but the core context is present and sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by making it clear that the text parameter is the content to be typed. It does not add further detail like length limits, newline handling, or whether the text is sent as-is.

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 specific verb ('type') and resource ('text into the focused field on the simulator'), which is clear and unambiguous. It is also distinguishable from siblings like press_key and tap, which serve different functions, even though it doesn't name them 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?

The description clearly implies a usage condition: the target must already be focused. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention required preconditions like focusing a field first.

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