send_command

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: automatically appending newline, returning clean text without ANSI codes, and requiring confirmation for dangerous commands. Annotations already indicate destructive potential, and the description reinforces safe usage.

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 three sentences long with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds key behaviors. Every sentence provides value.

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?

No output schema, so the description should explain return format. It says 'Returns clean text output (no ANSI codes),' but does not specify output structure, length limits, or error handling. Given the tool's complexity, more detail would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as the automatic newline and clean output, which are not parameter-specific.

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 'Send a command/input to an interactive session and wait for output.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the dangerous command workflow and output characteristics.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (sending commands) and explicitly notes that for dangerous commands, confirm_dangerous_command must be used first. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools like read_output or send_control.

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