jms_get_terminal_identity

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 states the tool returns the effective OS user, which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention if it requires any special permissions or authentication state, nor what happens if the session is invalid. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's primary function. No extraneous words or repetitive information.

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 an output schema and a single required parameter, the description provides the core purpose, making it minimally adequate. However, the complete omission of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand all invocation details.

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 for the three parameters (session_handle, total_timeout_seconds, settle_timeout_seconds). The description does not mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema titles and defaults. This is insufficient, especially for timeout parameters whose purpose is non-obvious.

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 the verb 'verify and return' with the specific resource 'effective operating-system user in a managed shell', which clearly indicates what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like jms_switch_terminal_user or jms_exit_terminal_user, which also deal with user identity.

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 this is used to check the current OS user after shell operations, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like jms_switch_terminal_user or jms_exit_terminal_user. No exclusions or context about prerequisites like requiring an active session are mentioned.

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