send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the raw character handling and escape sequences, which is helpful, but doesn't disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the session doesn't exist. It also doesn't mention return behavior, though an output schema exists.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear statement followed by parameter explanations. However, the parameter list is somewhat redundant given the input schema, but since coverage is 0%, it's necessary.

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 complexity (sending raw input to sessions) and the lack of annotations, the description covers the basics but omits important behavioral details like what happens on success/failure, session state requirements, and potential side effects. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained.

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 documents all three parameters: text (with escape sequence examples), send_enter (appends newline), and session_id (defaults to active session). This fully covers the parameters and adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Send raw characters or escape sequences' to a session. It distinguishes itself from siblings like spawn or expect by focusing on raw input. However, it doesn't explicitly rule out other sending tools like exec_expect.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The agent must infer that this is for sending raw input to an already-spawned session, but no alternatives or conditions are mentioned.

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