send_keys

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses mutation behavior, automatic Esc prepending, fire-and-forget nature, and that errors from Vim actions are not captured.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, but contains more detail than strictly necessary, making it slightly verbose for a simple tool.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter semantics, and return value, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

The description fully explains the 'keys' parameter, including format (string of Vim keystrokes), behavior (Esc prepended, multi-mode sequences in single call), and special key notation, compensating for 0% schema coverage.

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 raw keystrokes to Neovim as if typed, identifies it as a mutation tool, and distinguishes it from siblings like send_command and find_and_replace_buf.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use (normal-mode motions, visual selections, operator sequences) and provides alternatives (send_command for ex commands, find_and_replace_buf/write_full_buf for text edits) with reasoning.

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