onda_terminal_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the no-newline behavior and 'raw text' handling, which are the most important behavioral traits for a terminal-send tool. It doesn't cover side effects, but for this tool's scope, this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, with the core action and key behavior in the first sentence. Every word earns its place; no repetition of schema content.

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?

The simple tool is well-served by the description given full schema coverage and no output schema. It explains purpose and use cases, though it doesn't explicitly disambiguate from onda_terminal_send_keys, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds 'raw text' and use-case context but doesn't add any syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Send raw text to a terminal' – a specific verb+resource combo. The key qualifier 'without appending a newline' clearly differentiates it from siblings like onda_terminal_run, which likely appends a newline.

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 second sentence explicitly states when to use the tool ('interactive input, partial commands, or key sequences'). It does not name alternative tools for other cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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