send_secret

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: the secret never appears in AI context or logs, the value is sent to the PTY session, and a buffered secret from prepare_secret is used without a dialog. This covers all relevant traits.

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 compact yet comprehensive, with two key sentences and a warning. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical: action, behavior, usage constraints.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and behavioral details. It lacks explicit error handling (e.g., what if session is not waiting), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers prompt with a description, but the explanation of session_id and the buffering behavior adds meaning beyond the schema. For 50% schema coverage, the description compensates with contextual details about session usage and the buffer mechanism.

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 explicitly states the tool prompts the human user to type a secret directly into a GUI dialog, distinguishing it from sibling tools like prepare_secret and send_input. It clearly identifies the resource (secret prompt) and action (sending to PTY session).

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 when-to-use guidance (session actively waiting for password input) and when-not-to-use (idle shell prompt). It also explains the alternative behavior if prepare_secret was called, offering clear context for invocation.

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