type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key traits: operates via HID, types into the focused app, and does not use the clipboard. This is helpful but could go further by noting limitations, such as how keyboard layout or special characters are handled, though for a simple tool it adequately covers the essentials.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences each earning their place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds essential guidance and a key exception, with zero wasted words.

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 annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, prerequisite, behavioral traits (HID, no clipboard), and alternative tool usage. No major gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema has a single 'text' parameter with no description (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It does so by stating that the tool 'types unicode' and explicitly mentions 'No clipboard', clarifying that the text is typed directly via HID rather than pasted. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Type unicode into the focused app (HID).' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling 'key' tool by specifying that shortcuts should use 'key' instead.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Click the field first' instructs the user on the required prerequisite. 'For shortcuts use key' explicitly names an alternative tool and specifies when this tool should not be used.

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