remote_session_confirm

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 transparency. It only states the action without addressing prerequisites (e.g., an active session waiting for confirmation), side effects, or error behavior, which is a significant gap for a tool that sends input to a remote session.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a simple purpose.

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?

The description is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks context about when to use it relative to sibling input tools and what happens if no confirmation prompt is pending. The schema covers parameters, but overall guidance is thin.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (confirm, waitTime, sessionId), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond echoing the boolean Y/N mapping.

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 uses the specific verb 'Send' and identifies the resource as a 'Y/N confirmation response to a session,' clearly distinguishing this from generic input tools like remote_session_input. The scope is well-defined and immediately understandable.

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 use for confirmation prompts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus remote_session_input or remote_session_password. No exclusions or alternative mentions are included, so the agent must infer the usage context.

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