console_send

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 disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: 'auto-opens + logs in on first use', and explains the 'newline' parameter's effect (partial line). This is helpful, but it omits other important traits like whether the action is destructive or requires a running node, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and how a key parameter behaves. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that likely describes return values, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, a parameter nuance, and a follow-up tool. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites like the node being started, which would be useful for completeness in a lab environment with siblings like 'start_node' and 'stop_node'.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains 'text' (raw text), 'newline' (partial line behavior), and 'node_id' (node's console). However, 'username' and 'password' are only hinted at via 'logs in' without being explicitly tied to the parameters, leaving some ambiguity. This partial coverage warrants a 3.

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's function: 'Send raw text to a node's console' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'run_command' by labeling itself as 'lower-level', making its unique role explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'use it for multi-step interactive sessions where you need to drive the prompt yourself'. It also contrasts with 'run_command' and recommends 'console_read' for reading responses, offering clear alternatives and follow-up actions.

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