send_input

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

The description discloses that it returns any new output and provides input formatting examples including newline characters. However, with no annotations, it does not cover error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., command must be waiting for input), or potential side effects, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose. The use-case list and Args section are concise and each line adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 presence of an output schema and two simple parameters, the description covers the core functionality well. It does not mention what happens if the command_id is invalid or if the command is no longer running, but the overall context is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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?

Although the JSON schema lacks descriptions, the description includes an Args section explaining command_id and input_text, with concrete examples for input_text. This adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema, but could go deeper on encoding or expected format edge cases.

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 tool sends input to a running async command and returns new output. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'running async command' and by focusing on command_id versus session-based alternatives like send_input_by_session.

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?

It explicitly lists common scenarios (pagers, yes/no prompts, interactive programs) with concrete examples, making when to use the tool clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like send_input_by_session for session-based interaction.

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