vterm_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: focus dependency, no focus stealing, and non-blocking execution. However, it does not explain what happens if the window lacks focus or what the immediate return value is, leaving some failure-mode and response behavior unspecified.

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 three tight sentences, front-loads the core action, then gives focus constraints and the required follow-up. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given full parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: focus requirements and the need to call vterm_read afterward. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though failure behavior when unfocused is not fully specified.

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 pid, text, enter, and special keys in detail. The description adds only general context about keystrokes and does not supplement parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: send keystrokes to a visible terminal window. It clarifies the action as equivalent to typing on a keyboard, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vterm_spawn, vterm_read, and vterm_close.

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?

It explicitly states the focus prerequisite (true right after vterm_spawn or after user interaction), warns that it does not forcibly steal focus, and directs the agent to call vterm_read afterward. This gives clear when-to-use context and sequencing relative to sibling tools.

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