terminal_send_keys

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the allowlist restriction and the enablement gate, which are meaningful behavioral constraints. However, it does not say what happens if a key is not allowlisted or if terminal_input is disabled, nor 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the essential constraint and condition without fluff.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description leaves important gaps: how to identify allowlisted keys, what happens when terminal_input is disabled, and expected return behavior. The condition provided is useful but not sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the schema's bare parameter names. It gives a hint that 'keys' are tmux keys, but it does not explain allowed key formats, what 'session' refers to, or how the allowlist is determined.

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 action ('Send'), the object ('tmux keys'), and the key scope ('only allowlisted'), plus a condition. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like terminal_send_text, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 provides a prerequisite ('when terminal_input is enabled in local config') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as terminal_send_text or terminal_send_bound. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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