onda_terminal_send_keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each key entry is mapped to stdin bytes, supports a wide range of special keys, and falls back to raw literal text. This sufficiently conveys the tool's behavior for a non-destructive input operation, though it does not mention any potential side effects or blocking behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supported keys and an explicit alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable.

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 key-sending tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what keys it supports, and when to use it instead of the sibling tool. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining that 'Each entry in `keys` is mapped to the appropriate stdin bytes' and listing supported key categories, which complements the schema's example-based parameter descriptions.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Send semantic key sequences to a terminal.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool onda_terminal_send by specifying 'Use this for tmux-like control instead of onda_terminal_send when you need to type special keys.'

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided, including when to use this tool over the alternative: 'Use this for tmux-like control instead of onda_terminal_send when you need to type special keys.' The description also enumerates supported key types, making the scope clear.

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