herdr_agent_send_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the effect of sending CtrlC to interrupt a stuck agent, which implies the tool can affect running processes. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is asynchronous. More detail would improve transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the action, and includes concrete examples (CtrlC, Enter, Escape). Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description effectively communicates purpose and common use cases. It could mention expected response behavior, but this is not critical given the simplicity.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters (keys and target) with examples. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 key presses') and the target ('an agent's terminal'). It also specifies key use cases (recovery, TUI navigation) which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like herdr_pane_send_input.

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 when-to-use context by mentioning recovery and TUI navigation, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. This is clear enough for an experienced agent to decide.

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