shell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation is a read, returns the tail of the shell, and requires Thonny to be open. It does not disclose failure behavior, whether max_chars truncates the returned text, or the exact return format, so transparency is incomplete.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the clarification adds value, and the prerequisite is included. Every part earns its place.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description captures the core function and the key precondition. However, there is no output schema and no annotation, and the description does not explain the return format or behavior when Thonny is not open, leaving moderate uncertainty.

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 has one optional parameter, max_chars, with 0% description coverage, and the tool description never mentions it. The phrase 'end of ... shell' only vaguely implies a bounded read, so the description adds almost no parameter meaning; the self-explanatory name and default value keep this from being a 1.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('Thonny's shell'), and a scope ('the end'), then clarifies with 'what the user sees'. This is enough to distinguish the tool from generic siblings like 'read' and the other IDE commands without opening their schemas.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Thonny must be open') and implies the tool is for viewing user-visible shell output. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as 'monitor' or 'read', nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.

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