cc_send_slash_command

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context (default allowed, configurable) but omits important details such as whether the command is destructive, likely side effects, error handling, or that it operates within a session (implied by session_id parameter).

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and a configuration note. It is front-loaded but could benefit from a more structured format.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the role of most parameters, return values, error behavior, or how the tool integrates with sessions.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only provides example values for the 'command' parameter (e.g., /init) but does not explain 'args', 'confirm', 'session_id', or 'allow_frontmost'. This leaves most parameters undocumented.

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 tool sends internal slash commands like /init, /compact, /model, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cc_send_instruction or cc_send_decision. The verb 'send' and resource 'internal commands' are specific.

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 mentions that the tool is allowed by default but can be tightened via configuration, giving a vague usage hint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cc_send_instruction or cc_session_status.

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