jms_read_terminal_output

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'until idle or timeout,' which indicates blocking behavior, and 'Read' implies non-mutating intent. However, it does not explain whether reading consumes the buffer, how after_seq affects output, or whether a valid session is required, leaving important behavioral details undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, exactly conveying the core action and condition. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the session lifecycle, the meaning of after_seq, or how this tool fits into the overall terminal session flow (e.g., after acquire and send). The output schema may cover return values, but parameter semantics and operational context remain incomplete.

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%, and the description provides no parameter details. While parameter names like idle_timeout_seconds and total_timeout_seconds are somewhat self-explanatory, the critical after_seq parameter is entirely unexplained, making correct invocation difficult.

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 ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource ('buffered output from a managed KoKo terminal session'), with an additional condition ('until idle or timeout') that clarifies scope. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like send_terminal_input or close_terminal_session, which perform different actions.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as jms_run_terminal_command or jms_probe_koko_terminal. The description implies usage when you need to read output from an existing session, but it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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