keyboard_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal meaningful behavior: character-by-character typing, real keyboard simulation, and Unicode support. However, it omits important context like the need for an active focus target and what happens when there is no focused input field.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the Unicode support note adds useful detail without bloating the text.

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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, how it behaves, and what input it accepts. The main gap is the lack of any mention of focus requirements or failure behavior, but the description is still sufficient for straightforward invocation.

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?

The schema only documents 'text' as 'Text to type', and coverage is 100%. The description adds real semantic value beyond this by specifying that the text is typed sequentially rather than inserted, and that Unicode including Chinese, Japanese, and emoji is supported. This helps the agent know what kinds of strings are safe to pass.

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 a precise action and resource: typing a string of text character by character, simulating real keyboard input. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like keyboard_press and keyboard_hotkey, which handle individual keys rather than full text strings.

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 implies when to use it: when text needs to be entered as real keyboard input rather than pasted. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as keyboard_press or keyboard_hotkey, nor does it state exclusions like 'when only a single key is needed'.

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