tmux_send_keys

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavior. It explains the target format, special key names, and the literal flag, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., what happens if the target pane doesn't exist) or any prerequisites. This is 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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a clearly organized Args section. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy. It is concise yet informative.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers all parameters. An output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable. However, it could benefit from a brief note on when to use it (e.g., for interacting with a pane's input) or about the partial target behavior. This is a minor gap.

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 has 0% coverage, so the description fully carries parameter semantics. It provides examples for target ('session:window.pane'), lists special key names for keys, and explains the literal flag. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Send keys or commands to a tmux pane.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tmux_read_pane or tmux_select_window. The tool's function is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context (sending input to a tmux pane) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions target and keys, which informs usage, but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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