send_console

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: write-only (no output read back), one connection allowed, commands sent with Enter, requires running node, and Guacamole tunnel usage. This exceeds expectations for a tool without annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it front-loads the key purpose and differentiators. Every sentence adds value (examples, constraints, write-only warning). It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it remains concise without fluff.

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's complexity (3 required params, write-only behavior, multiple command types), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, constraints, examples, and verification steps. Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description explains the write-only nature, making completeness high.

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 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining the commands parameter with detailed examples (IOS and VPCS command sequences). It implies lab_path and node_id by context, but does not explicitly describe their format or purpose. However, the examples and usage instructions add significant meaning beyond the raw 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 tool types commands on a node's LIVE console via Guacamole tunnel, and explicitly differentiates it from push_config by listing specific use cases like VPCS IPs and IOL dot1Q subinterface IPs. The verb 'Type commands' and resource 'live console' are specific, and sibling differentiation is present by naming what push_config cannot do.

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 when-to-use (push_config limitations, live write mem, VPCS), prerequisites (node must be running, close other console tabs), and examples for IOS and VPCS. It also says to verify with export_config/get_node_config, offering a clear alternative for reading output. No exclusions are missing.

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