Send Message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions control character support but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read/write operation, what happens if the target doesn't exist, error conditions, or any side effects. For a tool that sends messages to tmux sessions, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with specific details about control characters. There's no wasted text, though it could potentially integrate usage context more effectively.

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 complexity of interacting with tmux sessions and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after sending the message, what success/failure looks like, or any system dependencies. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety/behavior annotations, more comprehensive context is needed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning control character examples (C-c, C-l) which are already covered in the schema's message parameter description. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Send a message') and resource ('to a tmux target'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like capture_screen or get_agent_status. It provides precise functionality details including control character support, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions control characters but doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other tmux-related operations or when it should be avoided, leaving usage context implied rather than stated.

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