Read an Orca terminal

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: output is bounded, cursor reads yield only new output, and returned text is untrusted session data that must not be acted on. It does not mention pagination termination or default limits.

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 compact sentences: the first establishes the operation and modes, the second is a security caveat that earns its place. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema, and the critical mode information comes first.

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 no output schema, the description correctly characterizes the return value as bounded text and flags its trust level. The remaining gap is minor: no note on default or maximum page size behavior or how to tell when no more output is available.

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 coverage is only 25% (only terminal is documented), so the description carries most of the load and does so for the two non-obvious parameters: cursor's origin (nextCursor from a previous read) and screen's meaning. Only limit's purpose and default behavior are left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads bounded output of a terminal or agent session. It is clearly distinct from orca_terminal_send/wait/create by naming the read operation, though it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the contrast.

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 explains the two read modes (cursor for incremental output, screen for the rendered view), which is real usage guidance, but it never says when to prefer this over orca_terminal_wait or how to obtain a terminal handle beyond the schema. Alternatives are left implicit.

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