computer_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core action but omits important behavior such as whether the tool simulates keystrokes, requires an active text field/cursor, or how it handles newlines and special characters. The phrase 'current cursor position' hints at a prerequisite but does not make it explicit.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, and the simple structure matches the tool's low parameter count.

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 core operation and parameter are covered, and an output schema exists, but the description is missing actionable context about prerequisites (focused text field) and how this tool relates to the input-focused siblings. For a low-complexity tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'text' parameter already has the description 'The text to type' in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Type') and a precise resource ('text at the current cursor position'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like press_key, hotkey, or clipboard_set. The intent is unambiguous even before looking at the parameter schema.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention that it is for free-text entry rather than single keys or key combinations, nor does it instruct the agent to ensure a text field is focused first.

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