process

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool manages running sessions and that poll can wait up to 30000 ms (clamped). However, it doesn't mention that actions modify session state (e.g., writing data, killing), which is reasonably inferred. It also doesn't state that list returns session IDs needed for other actions, though the schema makes that somewhat clear. Very good but not exhaustive.

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 tight 4-sentence paragraph. The first sentence front-loads all actions and the tool's purpose. The next two sentences give precise when-to-use guidance. The last sentence covers the remaining actions. Every sentence earns its place; no 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 12 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fills the behavioral gap well. It explains when to use each action type. The only missing element is a brief note that some actions (e.g., kill) are destructive or irreversible, which would have pushed completeness to 5. Still strong and sufficient for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond schema property descriptions – it simply names the action groups. The schema already describes each property's purpose (e.g., 'Hex bytes to send for send-keys'). The description adds no new parameter details or usage patterns, so it stays at baseline.

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 lists all eight supported actions (list, poll, log, write, send-keys, submit, paste, kill) and clearly states the tool manages running exec sessions. It even details specific use cases like confirming completion or getting input-wait hints. This fully distinguishes it from siblings like exec (which starts sessions) and read/apple_patch (which operate on files).

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use poll/log for status, logs, or input-wait hints, and when to use write/send-keys/submit/paste/kill for input/intervention. It also mentions the fallback when automatic completion wake is unavailable, giving actionable guidance to select among the tool's own actions. No sibling-level exclusions are needed because the tool manages already-started sessions – distinct from siblings.

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