adb_type_text

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the requirement for a focused field but omits potential failure modes (e.g., missing focus), handling of special characters, or whether text is unicode-supported. This leaves significant room for misinterpretation.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail, earning the highest score.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the primary action and object. However, the lack of details on behavioral edge cases (e.g., no focused field, special character limitations) means the description is not fully complete for an agent to predict outcomes reliably.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters ('text' and optional 'deviceId'), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies as no param-specific clarifications are provided.

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 tool's action ('Type text') and target ('currently focused input field'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like adb_tap or adb_press_key. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context: the tool is for typing text into a focused field. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as adb_shell, or what to do if no field is focused. This makes it clear but lacking exclusions.

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