pane_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: it sends text literally (no tmux key-name expansion), presses Enter by default, and is safe for multi-line/special characters. It does not mention side effects or failure modes, but the core action is transparent enough for a simple 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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, followed by the literal-sending caveat and the alternative to `pane_key`. Every sentence contributes.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description covers the main action, the optional Enter behavior, and the key sibling distinction. It omits minor edge cases like pane targeting syntax, but given the sibling set and simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 explains `text` is sent literally and `enter` controls whether Enter is pressed; however, `pane` is only referenced by name with no format guidance. This is adequate for the two most semantically interesting 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Type `text` into a pane, then press Enter'. It differentiates itself from the sibling `pane_key` by explicitly noting that text is sent literally and that `pane_key` should be used for control keys, so an agent can distinguish them.

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?

It gives clear direction to use `pane_key` for control keys, which is an explicit when-not and alternative. It does not enumerate all possible alternatives, but the main ambiguity with `pane_key` is resolved, and the literal-sending behavior indicates when multi-line or special-character input is appropriate.

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