type_textTypes characters into the focused widget in a Limoni terminal app, one key press at a time, then returns the updated widget tree. Does not submit by pressing Enter.
Types text into the focused widget as one key press per character, then returns the tree after the application redraws. Does not press enter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to type. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: character-by-character keystroke emulation, the post-redraw tree return, and the explicit non-submission of Enter.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, with the non-Enter caveat placed last. Every clause carries information.
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 single-param tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough: it explains the return value ('returns the tree after the application redraws') and the key behavioral caveat about Enter. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens if no widget is focused.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'text' fully. The description adds no format details (e.g., newline handling or special characters) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('types text into the focused widget') and describes the mechanism ('one key press per character'). It implicitly contrasts with press_key via 'Does not press enter', but never names the sibling, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: writing to the 'focused widget' signals the caller must focus it first, and 'Does not press enter' rules out submission. No explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives like press_key or click is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.