Send Raw Input To Claude Code TUI

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: sending literal text/tmux keys, not using the wrapper, and requiring an open session. It lacks details on failure modes or side effects like focus changes, making it adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences cover purpose, examples, and prerequisite with no unnecessary wording. Information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 raw-input tool with no required params or output schema, the description provides purpose, usage examples, and a prerequisite. It doesn't address behavior when no TUI session exists, but given the low complexity, it's mostly complete.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions (keys, text, enter). The description adds context by mentioning slash commands and control keys, but does not clarify the 'cwd' parameter, which lacks a schema description. Thus it is baseline adequate but not compensating for gaps.

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 verb ('Send') and resource ('existing Claude Code TUI pane') and differentiates from siblings by noting 'without the cc-in-codex wrapper.' Examples of use cases further clarify its purpose.

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 specifies when to use it ('Use for slash commands (e.g. /clear), control keys (C-c), or Escape') and states the prerequisite ('Requires an open tui session'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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