send_text

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it explains literal text handling, multiline support with \n and \t, and the Enter behavior. It does not mention return values or error conditions, but an output schema exists, so those are covered elsewhere.

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 well-structured and concise: a single-sentence definition, followed by parameter-specific guidance, and two illustrative examples. Every line serves a purpose without redundant elaboration.

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 relatively simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, parameter semantics, and practical examples. It lacks details about session validation or failure modes, but these are not necessary for basic selection and 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. It does for two of three parameters: text (literal multiline with escapes) and enter (boolean controlling Enter key press). The session parameter is not explicitly described, though its usage is shown in examples; given the low schema coverage, this is a minor gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Sends literal text via tmux buffer.' This clearly states the tool's core purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_keys by emphasizing 'literal text' rather than key sequences. The examples further reinforce what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance for parameter usage: 'Use enter=True for shell commands' and 'Use enter=False (default) for editors.' This provides clear context for when to use which setting, though it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like send_keys or list_sessions, so it stops short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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