interactive_bash_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. However, it only states the basic action without mentioning whether it waits for output, how timeouts work, what happens if the session doesn't exist, or any side effects. The parameters (wait_for_output, timeout_ms) hint at behavior, but the description itself adds no 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with zero superfluous content. It is front-loaded and easily scannable, making it appropriate in size for the tool's purpose.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description omits critical contextual details like return values, behavior when the session is not found, and how wait_for_output and timeout_ms affect execution. This level of description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool in varied scenarios.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the purpose; it doesn't clarify parameter relationships, edge cases, or expected input formats. Since the schema handles parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 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 '대화형 세션에 명령어 전송' (Send command to interactive session) uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like interactive_bash_create, interactive_bash_read, interactive_bash_list, and interactive_bash_kill.

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 implies the tool is used to send commands to an existing interactive session, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, such as first creating a session with interactive_bash_create or reading output with interactive_bash_read. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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