tui-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining key behavioral aspects: text is sent exactly as provided, MCP handles escaping (so no double-escaping needed), how to type literal backslashes, and that newlines require explicit inclusion. It doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics, but covers the essential operational 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 efficiently structured with four focused sentences that each provide essential information: purpose, escaping behavior, literal backslash handling, newline guidance, and sibling tool differentiation. There's no wasted text and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides comprehensive context about how to use the tool effectively. It covers purpose, behavioral characteristics, parameter usage guidance, and sibling differentiation. The only minor gap is lack of information about what happens after text is sent or potential error conditions.

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, but the description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema: it explains that text should include '\n' for Enter/newline (reinforcing the schema's parameter description), clarifies escaping behavior, and provides the literal backslash example. This enhances understanding of how to properly use the 'text' parameter.

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 ('Type a string of characters into the TUI app') and resource (text input to TUI). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'send_keys' for special keys, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to type a string of characters') versus when to use the alternative ('Use send_keys instead for special keys like Ctrl+C or arrow keys'). It also includes important usage notes about escaping and newline handling.

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