send_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the automatic polling behavior, the inclusion of [INFO] hints, the warning about closing sessions with running processes, and the default timeout behavior. This is substantial context beyond the schema, though it stops short of detailing error handling or failure modes.

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: a one-sentence summary, followed by behavioral details, guidance for long-running commands, a critical warning, and then a clear Args section. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the format makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how it behaves (polling, hints), when to use alternatives, parameter semantics, and a safety warning. No critical aspect is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with format (session_id: 'user@host-<id>'), purpose (command), defaults (lines=40, timeout=2.0), and usage guidance (increase timeout for slow installs). This adds significant value over the bare schema.

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's function: 'Send a command to an active session and return the screen snapshot.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like send_keys (keyboard input) and get_snapshot (snapshot only). The wording makes the tool's core purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage context, including automatic polling and the ability to increase timeout for slower commands. It explicitly recommends get_snapshot() for long-running commands, offering an alternative. It does not explicitly contrast send_command with send_keys, but the command vs. keystroke distinction is inherent in the wording.

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