Type Text

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: character-by-character synthesis for short text, clipboard paste for long text with restoration of prior clipboard contents, and the Accessibility permission requirement. These are significant side effects and prerequisites that are not captured in the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds critical detail (behavior, permission). No filler or redundancy. It is highly concise while remaining informative.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what it does, how it behaves for different input lengths, and its prerequisite. There are no gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already has a single parameter 'text' with a description. The tool description adds semantics by specifying that the text is Unicode and layout-independent, and explains length-dependent behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, but the added context justifies a 4.

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') with a resource ('Unicode text') and a clear target ('at the current keyboard focus'). It also adds 'layout-independent', which distinguishes it from input methods that may depend on keyboard layout. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like input_click or input_scroll.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: for typing Unicode text at the current keyboard focus. It mentions a prerequisite (Accessibility permission) and describes behavior for short vs. long text, which helps the agent decide. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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