terminal_send_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two key traits: it sends literal text (not interpreted sequences) and requires terminal_input to be enabled locally. However, it does not explain what happens when the config is disabled, whether press_enter affects the sent text, or whether this is a mutating action with 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 entire definition is one sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action ('Send literal text') and then states the key precondition. Every word adds value.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not tell the agent what a successful call returns, how press_enter behaves, what session refers to, or what error occurs when terminal_input is disabled. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently in diverse scenarios.

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 missing parameter docs. The phrase 'literal text' clarifies the text parameter. But session and press_enter remain entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at their meaning and usage.

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 verb ('Send') and resource ('literal text' to a terminal), and adds the qualifier 'only when terminal_input is enabled.' This makes the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling terminal_send_keys, so the differentiation is only implied through the word 'literal.'

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 a clear precondition: use this tool only when terminal_input is enabled in local config. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives like terminal_send_keys, so an agent has to infer when the other tool would be more appropriate.

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