send_text

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the reason worth heeding — a foreground program may act on any input — which is real risk context an agent can't infer from the hints. It stops short of explaining session targeting or what happens if the text contains control characters.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the risk note and alternatives. No filler, and the most important constraint comes first.

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?

Annotations and an output schema cover safety and return shape, and the submit-vs-execute guidance is present. However, for a mutation tool that writes into a live session, the absence of any statement about which session is targeted and how non-printable input is handled leaves a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet the 'session' parameter is never mentioned and it is unclear which terminal receives the text by default. Only the 'text' parameter is indirectly characterized as 'printable text without Enter'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (send printable text) and immediately scopes it with 'without Enter', which is the defining distinction from send_key. It also names the two siblings an agent might confuse it with, so selection is unambiguous without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete routing: use send_key('enter') to submit, or run_command to execute and collect output. That covers the main alternatives, though it doesn't address when to prefer this over switching/claiming a different terminal session first.

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