send_input

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral details such as whether the input is appended or replaces existing input, error handling for invalid command_id, or any side effects. The agent lacks critical operational context.

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 extremely concise at one short sentence, which aids quick scanning. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it borderline under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 moderate complexity (two required params, no enums, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It omits usage context, parameter constraints, and behavioral expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 adds no meaning beyond parameter names. The agent is not informed about the format or expected values for command_id (e.g., a UUID) or input_text (e.g., single-line vs multi-line).

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 'Send input to a running async command' clearly states the action (send input) and the target (running async command). It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_input_by_session' and 'send_keys', but lacks specificity about the nature of the input (e.g., stdin vs direct 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'send_input_by_session' or 'send_keys'. No prerequisites (e.g., command must be async and running) are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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