send_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely behavioral fact beyond the schema: escape sequences are decoded unless raw=True. It omits other important traits such as which session receives the input, whether it blocks, and what timing behavior applies, so the disclosure is partial.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler; the raw-flag caveat is placed immediately after the main verb. It is appropriately sized, though extremely terse for the behavioral burden it must carry.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 4-parameter, zero-annotation mutation-style tool the definition is under-specified: session targeting, delay semantics, and interaction with expect_text/capture_screen are all absent.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially clarifies 'keys' and 'raw', but says nothing about 'delay' (units? per-key or total?) or 'session_id' (which session is targeted, and the 'default' fallback), leaving half the parameters 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+resource ('Send keyboard input'), which is unambiguous against read-oriented siblings like get_cursor_position or capture_screen. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closest sibling send_ctrl, leaving the boundary between 'keys' and 'control keys' implicit.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a session must already be launched via launch_tui), and no routing advice against send_ctrl or expect_text. An agent must infer the intended workflow entirely from context.

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