jms_acquire_terminal_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavior ('get or reuse') but omits critical context such as authentication requirements, what 'managed' implies, error behaviors, or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that starts a session.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits parameter semantics and behavioral details like reuse conditions and startup timeouts, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only references 'asset/account pair' (covering asset_ref and account_ref), but leaves cols, rows, protocol, connect_method, and startup_idle_timeout_seconds unexplained. This fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 identifies the action (resolve and acquire/reuse) and the resource (managed KoKo shell for asset/account pair). It distinguishes from sibling jms_acquire_sftp_session by specifying 'KoKo shell' and 'asset/account pair', though the term 'KoKo shell' may require domain knowledge.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a terminal shell for an asset/account pair is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., jms_run_terminal_command for direct commands, jms_list_terminal_sessions for listing) or when not to use it, leaving the decision to the agent.

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