iterm2_send_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the 'as if typed by the user' behavior and the newline default (via the false-setting option in the description), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens with special characters, whether the pane must be active/focused, error behavior, or whether the command targets the currently visible pane.

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 sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the one behavioral qualifier (Enter). Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is a straightforward send-text operation with no output schema and a 100%-covered 3-param schema, so the description is reasonably complete. However, for an interactive terminal mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from noting prerequisites (e.g., API enablement via iterm2_enable_api sibling) or clarifying behavior when the pane isn't visible/focused, which are plausible failure modes for a real-world agent calling this tool.

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%, so the schema documents all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the newline default behavior ('press Enter after the text, default true') and the effect of setting newline=false ('type text without executing'), which goes beyond what the raw schema states. This is meaningful added semantics.

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 verb (send text/commands), the target resource (an iTerm2 pane), and the 'as if typed by the user' behavioral qualifier, plus the optional Enter behavior. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like iterm2_send_control_character (which sends special keys) and iterm2_read_pane (which reads), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 implies usage context ('send text/commands') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or when-not-to-use exclusions relative to siblings. For example, it doesn't clarify when to prefer this over iterm2_send_control_character or iterm2_current_pane. The use case is fairly evident for an interactive terminal tool, so implied usage is acceptable but not explicit.

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