terminal_ctrl_c

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description matches that by saying a sequence is sent. It adds the return behavior ('confirmation + short output') but does not disclose possible side effects such as interrupting or altering a running terminal process.

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 compact: one purpose sentence, one disambiguation sentence, and an Args/Returns block. Every sentence carries information, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple terminal-control-key tool, the description and schema together give the agent enough to invoke it correctly: terminal_id, key, allowed keys, and the type of return value. It does not provide sibling routing guidance, but that gap is already reflected in usage_guidelines.

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 describes terminal_id and key plus the supported values, but the description adds the crucial disambiguation that the tool name is not a restriction: any supported key may be provided in the key field. This prevents an agent from only ever sending ctrl-c and goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

States a specific action: sending control/device sequences to a terminal, with concrete examples (ctrl-c, ctrl-d, up, tab). The wording makes clear this is not general text writing, which distinguishes it from terminal_write, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 use case is implied: use this tool when the agent needs to send a control key or device sequence to an identified terminal. It does not explicitly contrast with terminal_write, keyboard_press, or other sibling tools, nor does it state when not to use it.

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