session_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the modes of input but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether sending certain inputs is destructive, what happens if the session is inactive, or the implications of the 'confirmed' parameter bypassing a dangerous command gate. The password parameter's logging note is a minor positive, but overall transparency is low.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides concrete usage examples for the two parameter families. Excellent front-loading of essential information.

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 the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively lean. It covers the three input modes but lacks explanation of the 'confirmed' parameter's role, the 'press_enter' default behavior, return value, or error conditions. While adequate for straightforward use, more details would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping control_char values to signals (e.g., 'c' for Ctrl-C) and key enum values to special keys, which clarifies intent beyond the schema's enum lists. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 sends input text, control characters, or special keys to an active session. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes the action from sibling tools like session_read or session_exec, which handle output or command execution.

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 provides guidance on how to use the parameters (e.g., 'Use control_char for signals... Use key for special keys...') but does not specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like session_exec or session_interact. No explicit when-not-to-use or context for excluding other tools is given.

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