terminal_key

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description only adds 'Requires lease_id,' which is already in the input schema. It does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites beyond the lease_id, or error behavior, so behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 very brief, which is good, but it includes an enum list that duplicates the schema. It lacks structural organization (e.g., sections for usage, parameters, behavior). It is concise but not optimally structured, and some text (the enum list) adds no value beyond the schema.

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?

The tool has four parameters and an output schema, but the description only covers two parameters and does not explain the optional 'alias' and 'pane_id' parameters. It also does not mention the output or any return semantics, though the output schema might cover that. Given the complexity and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete.

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 only mentions the 'key' parameter by listing its enum values (redundant with the schema) and states that 'lease_id' is required (also in schema). It completely ignores the optional 'alias' and 'pane_id' parameters, providing no meaning for them, and fails to add contextual detail to the required parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Send a special key to a terminal.' It also enumerates the allowed key values, which adds scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like terminal_write or terminal_interrupt, so it misses the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states that a lease_id is required, which is a prerequisite, not usage context. There is no mention of when special keys are appropriate or when to prefer other terminal tools.

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