vnc_type_string

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action 'Type a string.' It does not mention focus requirements, timing, special character handling, or error conditions, leaving the agent without insight into side effects or prerequisites.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded, stating exactly what the tool does. For such a simple tool, this length is appropriate and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Despite the simple one-parameter design, the description lacks essential context: it doesn't mention that this tool is for VNC sessions, doesn't reference related tools, and doesn't note any preconditions or side effects. The absence of annotations and output schema further reduces completeness. A brief note about connection requirements or constraints would meaningfully improve it.

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% and there is no property description, so the description must clarify the parameter. 'Type a string' implies that the required 'text' parameter is the string to type, which is a reasonable inference. However, it adds no additional constraints, formats, or examples beyond the schema's type declaration.

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 'Type a string' uses a clear verb and resource, indicating the tool types a textual string. It distinguishes from siblings like vnc_key_tap (single key) and vnc_set_clipboard (clipboard) by focusing on typing an arbitrary string, though it doesn't explicitly reference these alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios such as multi-character typing versus single-key taps, nor any exclusions or preconditions (e.g., active VNC connection). The description is purely existential without contextual direction.

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