terminal_send_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the immediate effects of signals (interrupt, suspend, EOF), which is useful, but it does not mention session state changes, error behavior, whether the session must already exist, or other side effects.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately supplies meaningful examples. There is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 two-parameter tool with an enum and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention how to obtain the terminal name, whether the terminal must be active, or what happens after a signal is sent, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer from sibling tools.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including descriptions and an enum with signal meanings. The tool description adds examples but mostly duplicates what the schema already explains, so it does not significantly expand parameter understanding beyond the schema baseline.

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 a specific action ('Send a signal to a terminal session') and provides concrete examples (Ctrl+C, Ctrl+Z, Ctrl+D) that make the tool's purpose identifiable. It is sufficiently distinguished from the sibling terminal_send by focusing on control signals rather than input, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 implies usage by listing signal purposes such as interrupt, suspend, and EOF, giving an agent a sense of when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like terminal_send or terminal_close, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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