type_text

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the tool simulates keystrokes via system events but fails to mention potential issues like character handling, rate limits, or what happens if the app is not active.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, efficient and front-loaded. However, it could incorporate minimal parameter guidance without significant bloat, slightly reducing the score from perfect.

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 simple tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters, the description conveys the core action but omits crucial context about the app parameter usage and return behavior, leaving moderate gaps.

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%, demanding the description add meaning. While 'text' is self-explanatory, 'app' lacks details on whether it requires the app name, process ID, or bundle identifier, and whether the app must already be running or will be launched.

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 action ('type'), the resource ('literal text'), and the target ('active app') using a specific mechanism ('macOS System Events'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like press_key and set_value.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as press_key or set_value. No prerequisites (e.g., app must be frontmost) or context for when typing is appropriate are provided.

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