input_text

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

Discloses that it works best with ASCII text and supports spaces. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not cover other behavioral details like whether it clears existing content, handles special characters, or simulates keystrokes.

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 concise, with a front-loaded main sentence and a compact note about Unicode alternatives. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers core usage and a critical exception. It lacks details about existing text behavior but is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 has no description coverage (0%). The description adds that the text parameter supports spaces, which is helpful but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation. Additional detail about newlines or special characters would improve it.

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 'Type text into the currently focused input field,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'input_chinese_text' and 'input_keyevent' by focusing on generic text input.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use alternatives: 'For Chinese/Unicode text, use set_clipboard + input_keyevent(keycode='279') (paste) instead.' This gives clear context on when not to use this tool and what to use instead.

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