Send follow-up to Claude Code cloud session

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds that the message is 'queued' (asynchronous delivery), which is useful behavior beyond the annotations, but says nothing about auth requirements, delivery guarantees, or whether an in-flight turn blocks the queue.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope ('existing') and mechanism are packed in without waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool only has two well-documented params. The description is nearly sufficient, missing only prerequisites for obtaining a valid session and the async implications of queuing.

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%: both params are fully documented with patterns and length bounds. The CLI form `claude --cloud <session> -p <message>` maps role to argument, adding marginal clarity, but duplicates what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (queue a follow-up message) and resource (an existing Claude Code cloud session). The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from claude_create_cloud_session, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 word 'existing' implies a session must already be present, giving implied usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over creating a session or how to obtain a session id, so guidance is only implied.

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