herdr_pane_send_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the key naming convention ('like Enter, CtrlC, Backspace') and mentions the combined text/keys capability. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether input appends or replaces, or what the return value is. The added context is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 and front-loaded: the main action appears in the first sentence, followed by use cases and key-name examples. Every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary fluff. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 send-input tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and key format. It does not explain return values or prerequisites explicitly, but the tool's operation is straightforward and the description offers enough to invoke it correctly. Sibling tools like herdr_pane_wait_for_output complement it, so the boundary is clear.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The tool description adds marginal value by clarifying that text and keys can be sent together ('and/or'), but it largely restates what the schema already conveys. No additional semantic detail is required.

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 tool's action: 'Send text and/or key presses to a pane in one call.' It specifies the resource (pane) and the verb (send), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like herdr_agent_send_keys by targeting panes. The mention of warm-up (PING_REPLY_WITH_PONG) and sending commands further clarifies its scope.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Used for warm-up (PING_REPLY_WITH_PONG) and sending commands.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for NOT using it. Thus, it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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