iterm2_send_control_character

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for safety disclosure. Sending Ctrl+C/D/Z are potentially disruptive (interrupting, suspending, EOF/logout) — the description does at least flag that these actions interrupt processes. But it doesn't note that Ctrl+D can log out/log off, that these are one-way (no undo), or the irreversible nature of some effects. Reveals the core effect but lacks deeper safety context.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. States the tool name's content and provides a concrete use case example. Well front-loaded and efficient.

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 2-param tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the essential needs. The behavior (sending control characters) is straightforward and complete. It could mention what happens on success/failure but this is a simple fire-and-forget action, so current coverage is largely sufficient.

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%, so the description itself adds little beyond schema. The enum values and their meanings are fully spelled out in the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'c' for interrupt/SIGINT). The description simply repeats 'Ctrl+C, Ctrl+D, Ctrl+Z, or Ctrl+L' from the schema with no additional format/usage nuance. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the load.

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?

Description clearly states it sends control characters (Ctrl+C/D/Z/L) to an iTerm2 pane and gives purpose ('interrupting processes or clearing the screen'). Verb+resource+scope are specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling send_text, but the 'control character' focus is reasonably clear.

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?

Description gives concrete use cases ('interrupting processes or clearing the screen') that imply when it applies. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with iterm2_send_text (which sends regular text) or state when NOT to use it. Usage is implied, not explicitly differentiated against siblings.

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