send_input_by_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It gives concrete examples of input_text (e.g., 'q' to quit pager, Ctrl+C), which is helpful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, whether the command is asynchronous, or any prerequisites like an existing session. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple send-input operation.

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 concise: a one-sentence purpose, a short use-case line, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is easy to scan. No filler or redundant content.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, an output schema (per context signals), and no annotations, the description covers the essential usage context: what the tool does, when to use it, and parameter meanings. It does not mention whether an active session must already exist or how errors are reported, but the core usage is clearly specified. Slight gaps in error/state prerequisites prevent a perfect score.

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?

The schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args section. It clarifies 'host' as 'Hostname, IP address, or SSH config alias', gives a concrete example for 'input_text', and marks 'username' and 'port' as optional. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Send input to the active shell for a session', identifying a specific verb and resource. It also provides a use case ('clearing stuck interactive states'), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling 'send_input', so it loses a point for lack of direct sibling differentiation.

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 description includes 'Useful for clearing stuck interactive states or sending input to the current shell', giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention any alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'interrupt_command_by_id' or 'send_keys', so full usage guidance is not provided.

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