jms_send_terminal_input

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 only says 'send raw input' and does not explain effects on the session, whether the operation blocks, how the input is interpreted, or any side effects. This is comparable to the update_drive example which also lacked 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 a single sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it very concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as session prerequisites, how to obtain a session_handle, behavior of append_newline, and interaction with the terminal lifecycle. For a tool with three parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the three parameters: session_handle, data, or append_newline. The verb 'send' hints at 'data' being the input, but no details are given for the other parameters, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('Send raw input') and the target resource ('managed KoKo terminal session'), making the primary purpose evident. It implies differentiation from siblings like jms_run_terminal_command via the word 'raw', but it does not explicitly distinguish between them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jms_run_terminal_command, jms_read_terminal_output, or jms_interrupt_terminal_session. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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