repl_snapshot

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

The description mentions that output is redacted for common secret patterns unless disabled, which is a useful behavioral trait not covered by annotations (none provided). However, it does not disclose other important aspects like whether the snapshot is destructive, performance implications, or if it requires special permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides only partial transparency.

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 two sentences, both earning their place: the first states the core purpose, the second adds a critical behavioral detail. It is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the basic purpose and a key behavioral note. However, it lacks details on return format, error conditions, or how to handle the output, leaving gaps for an agent. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 50%, with 'tail' having a description ('Trailing lines to return') in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for either parameter. The 'id' parameter lacks schema description, but the tool description implies it's a session identifier, making it interpretable. The baseline is 3 due to partial coverage and no extra value added.

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 the tool reads the current emulated terminal screen for a session, using a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('terminal screen for a session'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'repl_send' and 'repl_key' by focusing on snapshot reading, though it could differentiate more explicitly from 'repl_list' which lists sessions.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a session from 'repl_spawn', or when to prefer 'repl_expect' for waiting. The description lacks context for proper selection.

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