send_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends input but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, potential side effects (e.g., if input triggers process termination), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the process isn't running. This is a significant gap for a tool that interacts with processes.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.

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 the complexity of interacting with processes (implied by sibling tools like 'start_process' and 'stop_process'), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'send input' entails (e.g., simulating keystrokes, piping data), potential errors, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions), with 'text' and 'target_window' documented but 'workspace_id' lacking a description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of 'workspace_id' or clarifying 'target_window' options ('ui' vs 'exec'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work but leaves one parameter unexplained.

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 action ('Send input') and target ('to a running process in a specified window'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'execute_command' or 'get_output', which might involve similar process interactions, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific tool is the right choice.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_command' (which might start a process) or 'get_output' (which retrieves output). It mentions a 'running process' but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., must have a process started via 'start_process') or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.

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