node_console_send

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

With no annotations, the description well-discloses key behaviors: sends one command, waits until idle for specified seconds (or max_wait), and sends a blank line first. However, it does not mention error handling, prerequisites (e.g., node must be running), or what happens if timeout occurs.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains reading logic, third adds detail about blank line. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information comes first.

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 description covers core behavior but lacks parameter explanations and does not mention error handling, prerequisites (e.g., console must be reachable), or return value format (though output schema exists). Given complexity, more context would be helpful.

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 descriptions coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains idle and max_wait parameters but omits node_id, command, and project_id. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names; required parameters are not described.

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 tool sends a single command to a node's telnet console and returns output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like node_console_read (for reading) and node_console_session (for interactive sessions) through the verb 'send' and the behavior of waiting for idle.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like node_console_session or node_console_read. The description implies a single command use case but does not state when not to use it or provide comparisons.

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