input_text

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 mentions that it inputs text and returns a success/error message, but lacks details on permissions needed, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing text), or device-specific constraints. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections, making it efficient. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are redundant with the schema and output schema, slightly reducing conciseness, but overall it's well-organized.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter, an output schema (which covers return values), and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It explains the basic action and parameter, but as a mutation tool, it should include more behavioral context like safety or prerequisites, leaving room for improvement.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying 'text (str): Text to input', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't provide examples, constraints, or format details, so it only partially addresses the coverage 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 action ('Input text on the device') and specifies the resource ('text'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'input_char' or 'clear_text', which also involve text manipulation, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'input_char' for single characters or 'set_clipboard_text' for clipboard operations. It merely states what it does without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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