Send Raw Eos Command Line Text

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description adds critical behavioral details: the command is auto-terminated with Enter, requires explicit confirmation to send, is rate-limited, and can perform any console action. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with a brief intro, Args section, and important safety notes. Each sentence contributes meaningful information: examples, confirmation requirement, auto-Enter, destructive warnings, and rate limiting. No fluff 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers usage, safety, limitations, and operational constraints comprehensively. It explains the preview mechanism, arbitrary capabilities, and rate limiting, making it complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both params. The description adds value with example command strings, clarifies the preview vs. send behavior of confirm, and explains auto-termination. This exceeds the baseline but doesn't go into exhaustive detail on all edge cases.

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 arbitrary text to the Eos command line, acting as an escape hatch. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it covers anything the other tools don't, with concrete examples like patch changes and palette recording.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use this for anything the other tools don't cover'. It also provides guidance on the confirm flag for preview, warns about destructive commands, and mentions rate limiting, giving clear context for safe usage.

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