get_line

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it implies a read but never states what happens outside buffer mode (error? empty result?), whether it requires an active session, or any other constraint. 'Buffer mode only' hints at a limitation without disclosing its consequence.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. The brevity is efficient, though the trailing qualifier is under-explained rather than merely terse.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the definition still leaves the 'buffer mode' restriction, both undocumented parameters, and the tool's relationship to its many siblings unaddressed. For a 2-param tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, this is too thin.

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 neither 'row' nor 'session_id' is documented anywhere. The description implies a line index via 'one screen-buffer line' but says nothing about valid ranges, the default session, or how row maps to the buffer, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one screen-buffer line'), which is clear enough to distinguish from full-screen siblings like capture_screen or get_screen_region. The trailing 'buffer mode only' adds a scope qualifier but never explains what buffer mode is, so the differentiation is only partial.

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 only usage signal is the cryptic 'buffer mode only' constraint. No sibling tool is named as an alternative, no condition is given for preferring this over get_screen_region or capture_screen, and the mode restriction is left undefined.

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