send_raw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that non-literal keys are sent and gives examples, without disclosing side effects, session targeting behavior, authentication needs, or reversibility.

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; the example parenthetical earns its place by clarifying the key format. It is concise, though the overall definition remains sparse for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and three required parameters, the description is too thin. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but it still omits parameter meaning and sibling-tool guidance.

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% across three required parameters. The description adds meaning for 'keys' via examples like C-c and Up, but says nothing about how 'alias' or 'session' should be supplied or what they refer to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Invia tasti tmux') and scopes it to non-literal keys with examples. This helps distinguish it from literal key sending siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives like send_keys.

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 phrase 'non letterali' implies the tool is for special/raw tmux key sequences, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools such as send_keys or send_enter.

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