input_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable behavior beyond 'type': using ADBKeyboard, waiting for the screen to settle, and returning a fresh snapshot with annotation if never settled. This is meaningful context, though it omits details about failure modes or permission requirements.

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 primary action ('Type text into a field'), and every sentence adds useful behavioral information. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return behavior (fresh snapshot, optionally annotated), which is important. It also covers the typing method and settling behavior. It could be more complete by explaining what happens on failure, but the essential context for calling the tool correctly is present.

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 coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description's mention of 'optionally focus it first by selector' adds context for the selector parameters (id, text, index) but does not explain value, optional, or device_id beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a field and can optionally focus it first by selector, which is a specific verb and resource. However, a sibling tool named 'type_text' exists and the description does not differentiate input_text from it, so the agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'type_text' or other input methods. It does not state typical use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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