send_to_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses terminal typing behavior, partial name matching, and trailing newline requirement, but doesn't cover failure modes (e.g., if no tab matches) or potential side effects (e.g., overwriting unsaved content).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then specific details. No wordiness, every sentence adds essential info.

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 moderate complexity, no output schema, and 57 sibling tools, the description covers key aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, terminal special case, and default target. Could mention error handling, but overall sufficient.

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 must compensate. It explains 'text' as the string to send and 'name' as optional tab name with partial/case-insensitive matching, plus the trailing newline convention. This adds significant value beyond 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 sends a string to open tabs by name, with partial-match case-insensitive matching. It distinguishes from siblings like insert_snippet (which inserts at cursor) or run_command (which executes ST commands) by focusing on sending text to a view's content, especially terminals.

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 gives explicit context: how to execute a command (trailing newline), special behavior for Terminus tabs, and that omitting name targets the active view. It doesn't specify when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough for typical usage.

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