ssh_shell_send_ctrl

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 the 'without appending a newline' behavior and lists the keys, but does not explain the effects of each control character (e.g., SIGINT, EOF) or any session state requirements. The schema does add these details, but the description itself could be more forthcoming.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the verb, specifies the key characters, and adds a crucial qualifier. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains what to send, to which session, and notes the newline behavior. Slight gaps include explicit session-open prerequisites, but these are implied by the session_id parameter and sibling context.

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 coverage is 100% with thorough descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing the key values via 'Ctrl+C/U/D/Z' and the no-newline behavior. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Send a control character'), the target (SSH shell session), and the specific characters (Ctrl+C/U/D/Z). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ssh_shell_write by noting it does not append a newline.

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 usage context is implied: use for sending control characters to an SSH session, not for arbitrary text. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving room for clearer guidance.

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