inputText

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('input text') but doesn't explain how it behaves—e.g., whether it simulates typing, requires device focus, has side effects like triggering UI responses, or handles errors. This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Input text to the device' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving gaps that hinder the agent's ability to invoke it correctly in a device interaction scenario.

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%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'text', 'imeAction', and 'platform'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying text input, which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Input text to the device' clearly states the action (input) and target (device), but it's vague about what 'input' entails (e.g., typing, pasting) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'clearText' or 'selectAllText'. It avoids tautology by not restating the name exactly, but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling tool names alone, which is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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