session_interact

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 the combined send+read behavior and optional wait_for, but omits key behavioral traits: the effect of the 'confirmed' parameter for bypassing dangerous command gates, how input/key/control_char interact, error handling, or what happens on timeout. The mention of halving round trips is a performance note, not a behavioral trait. The description is adequate but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no filler. Every word earns its place. The structure is efficient and to the point.

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 12 parameters, 9 sibling tools, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain parameter interactions, what the output looks like, how it relates to siblings like session_send, session_read, or session_exec, or how to handle the 'confirmed' gate. A tool of this complexity requires more context to be fully usable.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning to individual parameters—'Optionally waits for a regex pattern' restates the wait_for schema description. It does not explain inter-parameter relationships (e.g., input vs. key vs. control_char mutual exclusivity) or the implications of confirmed, read_mode, or truncation. No additional value over the schema.

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 input and read output'), resource ('call' on a session), and distinguishes from siblings by noting it combines session_send and session_Read, halving round trips. This meets the 'specific verb+resource' criterion and differentiates from sibling tools.

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 when to use this tool (when you need both send and read in one call to halve round trips) and mentions optional regex waiting, suggesting an alternative to using separate session_send, session_read, and session_wait_for. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list exclusion cases, which keeps it from a 5.

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