agy_target_send_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses the queuing and release mechanism, the dependency on planner responses, and the deadlock risk. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure for a non-trivial tool.

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: the first states the core purpose concisely, the second adds essential behavioral detail. No fluff, front-loaded with the action.

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 the tool's experimental and technical nature, the description covers the key behavioral model and risks. It does not describe the output schema (though not required) and could explain the 'enter' parameter, but overall it is adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The description mentions 'input' and 'interactive Run,' partially clarifying the 'text' and 'run_id' parameters. However, the parameter 'enter' (default true) is not explained. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate.

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 input to an experimental interactive Run only.' It uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('input to interactive Run'), distinguishing it from siblings like agy_start (starts a run) or agy_interactive_start (starts interactive mode).

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 explains that prompts are durably queued and released one at a time after a completed planner response, and warns about potential deadlock if event types change. This provides context on when to use the tool and its queuing behavior, though it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools.

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