send_keys

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the action and supported tokens, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., no output reading, no mention of session state changes) or authentication requirements. Returns only a success message.

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 well-structured with a clear overview, token list, examples, and parameter definitions. It is comprehensive without being verbose, though the token list could be slightly condensed.

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 the presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description adequately covers the key aspects: input format, supported tokens, and parameter meanings. It could add context on behavioral differences from similar tools like send_input.

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?

The description provides detailed explanations for each parameter in the Args section, including examples and optionality, which compensates for the 0% schema coverage. Each parameter's purpose and format are clearly defined.

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 the tool sends special keys or key sequences to a session, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like execute_command by focusing on key sequences rather than full commands.

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 explains the tool is for sending key sequences with special tokens, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or compare with alternatives like send_input. The context is clear but lacks exclusion guidance.

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