send_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It warns 'This can affect a live Claude session' and discloses the newline behavior ('newlines sent here may submit early'). It does not detail return values or error conditions, but covers key side effects and a behavioral quirk, earning a strong score.

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 sentences, each with clear value: purpose, usage, and a caution. No redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides key details efficiently.

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 purpose, usage alternatives, and a critical warning, making it useful for a simple tool. However, it does not address how to select a specific session (managedSession parameter) or mention the deprecation of tmuxSession, leaving minor gaps in context.

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 low (25%). The description adds meaning for 'text' (literal) and 'submit' (press Enter), but does not explain 'managedSession' or 'tmuxSession'. It partially compensates for the coverage gap, but not fully, so a 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Send literal text to the managed native Claude session.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly contrasts with submit_prompt, distinguishing this tool from a key sibling. This meets the 'specific verb+resource+scope' criterion.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use submit=true to press Enter after sending' and 'For multi-line prompts use submit_prompt; newlines sent here may submit early.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions, including an alternative tool recommendation.

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