read_process_output

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: output is captured incrementally using offsets, and wait_ms causes blocking until output arrives or process exits. This adds substantial value beyond the structured annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the essential usage pattern. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no redundancy.

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 read tool with clear annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the key call semantics: offsets for incremental reads and blocking behavior. The response structure is not explicitly described, but the tool's behavior and parameters are sufficiently specified for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds extra semantics by explaining how since_stdout and since_stderr relate to previously returned next offsets, and how wait_ms modifies tool behavior, improving parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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: reading captured stdout/stderr from a managed background process. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like process_status (status vs output) and process_write (write vs read), so an agent can select it correctly.

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 concrete usage context: pass prior offset values to fetch only new output, and use wait_ms to block. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the usage pattern is clear enough for correct invocation.

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