type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose valuable behavior: how escape sequences are interpreted, the layout default (ARKKVM_KEYBOARD_LAYOUT), and the BIOS/UEFI caveat. It does not address preconditions such as target focus, error behavior, or whether typing is interruptible.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by escape semantics, then param guidance. Every line is informative with no filler, though the multi-line layout block is slightly dense.

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?

This is a low-complexity 2-parameter tool with an output schema, so return values need no explanation. Both parameters are meaningfully covered and the layout caveat rounds out what an agent needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: the 'layout' parameter is explained with its accepted values ('us'/'de'), its default env var, and the BIOS/UEFI recommendation, while 'text' gains meaning through the documented escape sequences.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Type text on the target as keystrokes') and immediately clarifies escape-sequence behavior for '\n' and '\t'. It is clearly distinct from navigation siblings like move_mouse or click, though it never explicitly contrasts with press_keys.

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: this is the tool for entering literal text, with escape sequences covering Enter/Tab. However, it never says when to prefer this over the sibling press_keys or what conditions make it unsuitable (e.g., no focused input field).

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