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

While annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, the description adds crucial nuance: starting or interacting can change local or external state, force termination can lose unsaved work, and reading/waiting/listing are non-mutating. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent weigh side effects before invoking.

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 sentences deliver usage context, operation enumeration, safety behavior, and an explicit sibling alternative with zero filler. Key guidance is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a high-complexity multi-operation tool with nested conditional schemas, the description covers when to use it, how to choose an operation, side-effect risks, non-mutating alternatives, and the main sibling distinction. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed here.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and operation-specific constraint. The description's note that parameters are validated against the selected operation's closed schema is useful but does not add parameter-level semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 concrete resource (shell commands / ReMCP terminal sessions) and enumerates the specific operations: start, read, wait, interact, stop, or list sessions. It also distinguishes itself from manage_system, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('when the task needs a shell command or an existing ReMCP terminal session') and when not to, by directing OS-wide process inventory or arbitrary-PID killing to manage_system. It also provides operation-level guidance, such as which operations mutate state and which do not.

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