adb_shell_send_ctrl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'without appending a newline'. This adds value beyond the schema. It doesn't elaborate on error cases or prerequisites, but for a simple signal-sender, this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the action and a critical nuance. There is no wasted verbiage.

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 tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, action, and distinguishing behavior. The sibling context (adb_shell_*) reinforces the domain. No additional detail is necessary.

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%: both session_id and key are fully described in the schema, including the enum values for key. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool sends a control character (Ctrl+C/U/D/Z) to an ADB shell session, with the specific behavior of not appending a newline. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_shell_write (for text input) and adb_shell_exec (for commands).

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 context is clear: use this tool to send a control character to an active ADB shell session. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of the action and the session_id parameter imply proper usage. No exclusions are stated.

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