send_pf

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it sends a PF key and returns the resulting screen. It omits details about synchronization, error handling, connection prerequisites, or side effects beyond the screen change.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core action and return value, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than concise in a helpful way, lacking any additional context that would justify its brevity.

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 simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the basic function but misses important context such as when to use it (e.g., for mainframe navigation), whether a connection must be active, and how it differs from related tools. It is adequate for a trivial tool but not fully complete.

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 schema provides a required integer 'number' with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description adds the range '1-24' and clarifies it is a PF key number, which is some added meaning, but it does not explain the semantics of PF keys, valid ranges, or out-of-range behavior. The compensation is minimal.

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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'PF key' with a numeric range (1-24), and notes the return value is the resulting screen. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like send_enter or send_pa by the tool name and the PF key focus, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_keys or send_pa. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description; no exclusions or contextual cues are provided.

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