terminal_send_bound

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that sending only works when global and binding input are enabled and that input is literal. However, it does not explain what happens if those inputs are disabled, whether press_enter is applied, or any side effects.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the core action, covers the literal-text behavior, and states the enabling condition. There is no redundant wording.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits the role of 'binding', the press_enter option, the behavior when the enabling condition is false, and any return value or confirmation information.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies that 'text' is literal and suggests 'binding' relates to the binding-enabled condition, but it gives no meaningful explanation of 'binding' as a parameter and completely omits 'press_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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Send literal text' subject to a clear condition ('only when global and binding input are enabled'). It distinguishes the tool from key-sequence senders by emphasizing 'literal text', though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 'only when global and binding input are enabled' provides a clear precondition, and 'literal text' hints at when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly contrast with terminal_send_text or terminal_send_keys, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance.

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