send_control

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description does not add behavioral context beyond listing supported controls; it does not disclose side effects, such as process termination or state changes, nor does it contradict annotations.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates purpose and examples. No redundant information.

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 no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and typical use cases. Minor gaps: no mention of behavior on invalid session or control sequence.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by giving functional examples (e.g., ctrl+c to interrupt) that explain the effect of certain controls, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's enumeration.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool sends control characters or special keys to a session, with concrete examples like ctrl+c and ctrl+d. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_command (which sends typed commands) and read_output.

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 for sending control sequences (e.g., to interrupt or send EOF), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_command or confirm_dangerous_command. No exclusions or context are provided.

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