it2mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'without pressing Enter' which adds useful behavioral context about input handling. However, it fails to disclose critical traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (could send commands that alter session state), rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured Args section that efficiently explains each parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague language, making it appropriately sized and well-organized.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral transparency. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, but for a mutation tool that could affect session state, more context on safety and constraints would improve completeness. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: text (what to send), session_id (target, with omission rule), and all_sessions (broadcast behavior). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., text encoding) or interactions between parameters.

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 action ('Send text') and target ('iTerm2 session') with a specific behavioral detail ('without pressing Enter'). It distinguishes from siblings like session_run (which likely executes commands) and session_read (which reads output). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from session_set_variable or other text-related tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 for sending text to terminal sessions, with parameter hints (e.g., omit session_id for active session) that suggest context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like session_run or broadcast tools, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, making it only implied rather than clear.

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