send_to_shell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the action but omits details like whether it blocks, what happens if the process is dead, or the effect of the `append_newline` parameter. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with the essential action, then a use case. Every word 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?

Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about prerequisites (e.g., process must be spawned), return value, or data format. It only covers the basic action and a minimal use case.

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 has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what `proc_id`, `input_text`, or `append_newline` mean. The agent must infer from names, which is risky.

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 states the verb 'Write' and resource 'stdin of a spawned process', distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_shell' or 'spawn_shell'. Mention of 'interactive REPLs' adds specific context.

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 'Useful for interactive REPLs' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling list makes differentiation plausible.

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