Send named keys to a pane

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the gating mechanism ('app toggle + HYPERPANES_ALLOW_INPUT=1 + confirm=true'), specifies that it sends 'the right terminal bytes', and emphasizes it is input (same as send_input). This goes well beyond the schema and provides critical behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences deliver the purpose, scope, use cases, and gating requirements without redundancy. Information is front-loaded and every clause serves a function. No wasted words.

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 key-sending tool, the description is complete: it defines the input, behavior, use scenarios, and prerequisites. There is no output schema to explain, and the description covers the essential context an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description adds a comprehensive enumeration of accepted key names, enriching the 'keys' parameter beyond the schema's examples. However, it does not clarify 'paneId' (which lacks a schema description) or add meaning to 'owner', leaving a modest gap. Since schema coverage is 75% and the description partially compensates, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Send') and resource ('a sequence of named keys to a live pane'), and enumerates the supported keys. It explicitly differentiates from send_input by noting it handles 'things a text string can't express', making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable.

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 provides concrete use cases: 'For menus, y/n and trust prompts, and cancelling'. It also references send_input and the 'triple gate', implying when this tool is appropriate and that it shares input restrictions with send_input. This gives clear contextual guidance.

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