tmux_send_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the behavior of `text` with literal=True/False, that `keys` are sent directly, and that `enter=True` adds an Enter press. It also states the return value. This is sufficient for understanding the tool's actions.

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 concise with two paragraphs and uses effective formatting (e.g., separating modes). It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource. A slightly more structured grouping of parameters could improve readability, but it is already efficient.

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 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential functionality (modes, key behaviors). It does not elaborate on error handling or edge cases, but for a tool of this complexity, the provided context is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly.

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%, meaning the description does not individually describe schema parameters. However, the description adds significant meaning for core parameters (`text`, `keys`, `enter`, `literal`), though it misses `target_pane` (the required one) and `target`. The provided parameters are well explained.

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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'input to a pane', distinguishing it from sibling tools like tmux_command or tmux_run_shell. The two modes (text/keys) are explicitly explained, making the specific use case unambiguous.

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 explains two modes and provides examples for each, as well as the purpose of the `enter` parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, though the context is clear.

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