remote_session_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that input is sent to a session, that hideInput suppresses logging for sensitive data, and that waitTime/waitForOutput affect behavior. It doesn't mention whether a newline is appended or error handling, but for a focused tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a tight bullet list of use cases and a specific recommendation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects needed for correct use: when to use, what to send, sensitive-data handling, and optional wait behavior. It misses minor details like response format or newline handling, but for a 5-parameter tool with high schema coverage it is notably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces the hideInput parameter for passwords (also in schema) but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the specific verb 'Send input text' and the resource ('a session'), with explicit use cases (respond to prompts, passwords, confirmations). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_session_output (which reads output) and remote_session_signal (which sends signals).

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use when a remote command is waiting for user input') and lists concrete scenarios (password prompts, Y/N confirmations, etc.). It also offers a practical tip (set hideInput=true for passwords) that helps the agent apply the tool correctly.

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