desktop_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the use of xdotool but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it appends or replaces text, handles special characters, or requires the window to be focused. This is inadequate for safe invocation.

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 a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it is too brief and lacks critical information, which is not a virtue of conciseness but of under-specification. It could be slightly longer to clarify parameters and behavior.

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 no output schema and low complexity (2 params), the description should still cover prerequisites (e.g., xdotool installed, window focused) and return behavior. It does not, leaving agents to guess. Siblings likely have more detail.

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?

Neither the description nor the input schema explains the parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only implies 'text' is the text to type while leaving 'id' ambiguous (e.g., window ID, process ID). This is a critical gap.

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 into the focused window using xdotool. The verb 'type' and resource 'focused window' are specific, and it is distinguishable from siblings like desktop_key (sends key presses) and desktop_click (mouse clicks). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like desktop_key or desktop_type. There are no usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. The description is purely functional.

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