keyboard_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the injection method and the need for focus, but does not explain chunk_delay_ms behavior, handling of special characters, or error behavior. This is partial transparency.

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 sentences, directly addresses the core action, and front-loads the key information without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic use case but omits details like chunking behavior, the effect of the delay parameter, and failure modes. It is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.

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 the description does not explain parameters. 'text' is obvious from context, but 'chunk_delay_ms' is left unexplained. The description only indirectly maps to the text parameter, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 function: 'Type text into the focused element' with a specific method (layout-independent unicode injection). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like key_press and clipboard_paste by its scope and mechanism.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Click the target field first.' This gives concrete guidance for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention scenarios where it should not be used, so it is not a full 5.

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