send_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavior — no Enter key is pressed — and clarifies that the text is sent literally. It doesn't mention output or side effects, but for a simple text-send operation these are less critical.

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, front-loads the core function, then gives parameter guidance and an alternative. There is no irrelevant filler and all information earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool, this description is largely complete. It gives the pane format, explains the behavior, and points to the main alternative. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly differentiate from send_keys, but the term 'literal text' conveys which use case this tool serves.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an explicit format example for pane ('like `w17:p1`') and clarifies the text parameter as 'literal text'. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw 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 states a specific action ('Send literal text to a pane') and explicitly distinguishes it from run_command by noting that it does not press Enter. This is immediately clear and separates it from its closest functional sibling.

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 direction: use send_text for literal text without Enter, and use run_command when a command and Enter are intended. It doesn't explicitly contrast with send_keys, but the distinction from run_command is enough to guide most calls.

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