qt_keyboard_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses that input is real, can overwrite existing text, triggers real app behavior, may silently redirect on stale element_id, and that focus-dependent widgets may ignore input. This is rich, safety-relevant behavioral context beyond any schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, then adds necessary behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place: real-input warning, focus fallback, focus-dependent widgets, and the qt_key_combo alternative. No fluff 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?

The description is largely complete given the output schema exists (so return values need not be described) and the core behavior is well covered. However, the missing semantics for modifiers and session_id create a real gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly with all parameters. Still, the main usage path and key pitfalls are clearly covered.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains element_id semantics (0/unresolved → focused widget, stale id redirect) and text behavior (typed, can overwrite), but it does not describe the modifiers parameter (accepted values or combination rules) or session_id. This is partial compensation; two of four parameters remain semantically under-specified.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Send keyboard input (typed text) to a UI element.' It clearly identifies the primary action and object, and distinguishes itself from the sibling qt_key_combo by explicitly carving out shortcuts for that tool.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: use for typed text, use qt_key_combo for shortcuts like Enter or Ctrl+C, and call qt_focus first when text does not land. It also explains the fallback behavior when element_id is 0 or unresolved, which helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool.

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