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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it types text via wtype, but does not explain details such as whether the typing is simulated at the OS level, if there are any side effects (like interfering with the focused window), or if there are rate limits or timing considerations. The description is too sparse for a tool that performs an input action.

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 that is to the point)Skip empty line. There is no fluff, but it is under-specified, so it earns a 4 for conciseness rather than a 5 because it lacks necessary detail.

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 that this tool has an output schema (though not described) and two parameters, the description is quite minimal. It does not explain what the output is, if any, or provide sufficient context for how the tool behaves in the broader environment. An agent might need to guess at the effect of 'delay_ms' or whether the tool returns a success indicator. The description is insufficient for robust usage.

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%, meaning the schema does not document the parameters. The description itself does not explain the parameters, but the parameter names ('text', 'delay_ms') are self-explanatory to some extent. However, the description does not add any context about the 'delay_ms' parameter (e.g., units, purpose), so the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states the verb 'Type' and the resource 'text', and specifies the implementation tool 'wtype', which gives clarity about its function. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'key_press' or 'paste_text', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from them. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand the core action.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'key_press' or 'paste_text'. However, the context implies it is for typing arbitrary text as a string, while 'key_press' is for individual keys and 'paste_text' likely for clipboard content. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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