send_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not reveal what happens when input is sent (e.g., buffered vs. delivered immediately, failure if command is not active, whether it blocks, or any side effects). This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary verb and object. Every word contributes to meaning, with no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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 tool's simplicity (two string params, no output schema), the description covers the core action but leaves important contextual gaps: it does not explain how to obtain a valid command_id, what constitutes an 'active command,' or how this fits into the broader command lifecycle. With no annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 no descriptions for its two parameters, and schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by implying that 'text' is the content sent and 'command_id' identifies the active command. However, it does not explicitly map parameters to their roles or elaborate on expected formats, leaving some inference 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 a specific action: 'Send text input to the stdin of an active command.' The verb 'send' pairs with the resource 'stdin of an active command,' and this clearly differentiates from siblings like 'run_command' (which starts commands) and 'kill_command' (which terminates them).

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 phrase 'active command' implies this tool is for interacting with already-running commands, suggesting it should not be used to initiate a command. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor mention that command_id should come from run_command. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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