send_ctrl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the keystroke effect but says nothing about side effects, whether it blocks or waits, what happens on an invalid key, or what error/response results when no matching session exists.

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 sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and an inline example that earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The output schema is present, so return values need not be explained. However, for an input-injecting tool with no annotations and a session-scoped parameter, the definition omits session targeting, required session state, and failure behavior — leaving meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the required 'key' parameter's meaning via the Ctrl-C example, which is genuinely useful, but the second parameter (session_id, default 'default') is never mentioned, leaving its targeting semantics undocumented.

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 — sending a Ctrl+<key> combination — with a concrete example ('c' sends Ctrl-C) that makes the effect unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling send_keys, so an agent must infer that this tool is the Ctrl-modifier specialization.

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?

No when-to-use guidance: it never says to prefer this over send_keys for modifier combinations, nor when to use plain send_keys instead. The existence of a session_id parameter implies it acts on an existing TUI session, but no precondition (session must exist / be active) is stated.

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