jms_probe_koko_terminal

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 fails to state whether the probe is read-only, whether it establishes an actual connection, or what side effects (if any) it may have. 'Probe' implies a non-destructive check, but this is not explicit, and no details about auth requirements, timeouts, or failure modes are given.

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 that is direct and waste-free. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to grasp quickly. However, given the tool's complexity, additional detail might be necessary, but the description itself is concise and well structured for what it includes.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral nuances. While the output schema may document return values, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool among 30+ siblings with similar terminal-related functions.

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 input schema covers seven parameters with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add minimal meaning by mentioning 'concrete account ID or a user-facing account reference', which likely maps to the 'account' parameter, but it does not clarify the other six parameters (e.g., cols, rows, protocol, max_messages, connect_method) or the required 'asset_id'. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb 'Probe' and identifies the resource as 'KoKo terminal access', which clearly states the tool's core function. It also mentions the two ways to specify the target (concrete account ID or user-facing account reference), adding relevant detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like jms_resolve_terminal_target, though the term 'probe' suggests a distinct non-invasive check.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state whether it should be used before acquiring a terminal session, how it relates to jms_resolve_terminal_target, or any exclusions. The only implied context is that it is a probing action, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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