send_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that the text is sent literally (i.e. escape/key sequences are not interpreted). It does not say whether a newline/Enter is appended, whether the session must exist or be attached, or what happens on a missing session.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriately sized for a short tool. Its terseness is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness one.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 3-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the definition is far too thin: no alias meaning, no newline behavior, no prerequisites.

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% for all three required params. The description clarifies the 'text' parameter as literal text and implies 'session', but 'alias' (which host/server the session lives on) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a concrete verb (sends) and resource (literal text to the session), and the word 'literal' implicitly contrasts with less literal siblings like send_raw or send_enter. However, it never names those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from the whole toolset.

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 rather than send_raw, send_enter, run_command, or broadcast, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. an attached/existing session). The agent is left to guess from the name alone.

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