send_session_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful trait: async queueing with delivery when the terminal becomes idle. However, it omits what happens if the terminal never becomes idle, whether delivery is confirmed, or any auth/permission context.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the delivery-timing detail appended. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a two-param mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the core behavior but leaves parameter meaning and edge-case behavior (busy/never-idle terminals) unaddressed.

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 both required parameters (terminal_id, message) are undocumented in the schema. The description implies a message and a target terminal but adds no format, constraint, or identifier-syntax meaning to either parameter.

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 verb (queue) and resource (a message for a terminal) and explains the delivery mechanism. It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related broadcast_message tool.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as broadcast_message or answer_prompt, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the mention of terminals.

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