Type into a terminal session

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the tmux-buffer paste default for multi-line/large text, the paste=false override, the tmux key-notation convention, and that wait_ms yields a capture in the same call. It does not say what happens on a missing/dead session or whether the call blocks, but the important write-path behavior is covered.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it sends, paste default, key syntax, wait_ms capture). No filler or repetition of the title.

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 7-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior paths and the capture-in-same-call return mechanism. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (invalid session) and interaction between submit and keys, but nothing needed for a correct basic call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by adding the tmux key notation vocabulary (C-c, M-x, F1) and the auto-paste condition for multi-line/large input, which clarify how keys/paste/input interact beyond the terse schema strings.

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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (literal text, key names, Enter to a terminal session), which is clearly distinct from terminal_read and terminal_create. It does not explicitly contrast with run_command, the nearest sibling that also executes things in a session, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implies usage (type/paste into an existing session) and explains the paste vs literal send-keys choice, but never says when to use this instead of run_command or when to prefer terminal_read. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named.

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