shell_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that output is incremental and tied to a cursor, but does not state whether reading advances the cursor, whether reads are idempotent, how wait_ms affects blocking, or what happens when output exceeds max_bytes.

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 single sentence is terse and free of filler, and it front-loads the core operation. However, at one sentence with no parameter or behavioral context, it is under-sized relative to the tool's complexity.

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?

With five parameters, no annotations, and only this description, the definition lacks important operational context—how a cursor is obtained, how incremental advancement works, and how wait_ms/max_bytes shape the read. The presence of an output schema may define the return shape, but it does not fill the input/usage 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%, yet the description names none of the five parameters and does not explain cursor, shell_id, exec_id, wait_ms, or max_bytes beyond their raw schema constraints. This leaves the agent without semantic guidance for the 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a precise resource ('incremental output from an execution cursor'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like shell_exec, shell_write, or shell_signal. It tells an agent exactly what operation this tool performs.

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 phrase 'execution cursor' implies this tool is used after an execution has been started, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or mention of alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are given, so an agent must infer the context.

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