read_screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the environment variable requirement and does not mention any side effects, permissions, or response format. For a tool reading screen state, more details on what exactly is returned would be helpful.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it still lacks context on what 'terminal screen state' means, how max_lines affects the output, or how to set up the required environment variable. The tool is simple, but the description is too minimal for effective use without prior knowledge.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool's description does not compensate; it fails to explain any of the four parameters (host, port, username, max_lines). This forces the AI agent to infer their meanings from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'terminal screen state', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'read_file' and command execution tools, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar screen-related tools if any exist.

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 description includes a usage requirement ('requires MCP_SSH_INTERACTIVE_MODE=1'), providing a necessary condition for use. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_input' or 'execute_command', and offers no indications of when not to use it.

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