send_line

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation. The description adds the key behavioral detail that it appends Enter to the text, which is not captured in annotations or schema. It does not cover side effects or prerequisites, but for a simple typing tool this is reasonable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential behavior without filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and two string parameters, the description covers the core action well. However, the 'sid' parameter is not explained, and the description does not mention any side effects beyond typing, which prevents a 5.

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%. The description implicitly references the 'text' parameter but gives no meaning for 'sid'. With two required parameters, the description fails to explain the purpose of 'sid', leaving the agent to guess based on the parameter name alone.

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 'Type text followed by Enter' clearly states a specific verb-action (type text) and the result (followed by Enter), and frames it as 'the common run this command action', which distinguishes it from siblings like send_text or send_keys. It is specific and non-tautological.

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 phrase 'the common run this command action' conveys that this tool is the standard way to execute a command in a session, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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