interactive_bash_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'read' output, implying a non-destructive operation, but does not disclose whether it consumes output, blocks, errors on missing sessions, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool interacting with sessions.

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 short phrase, making it very concise, but it lacks structural formatting (e.g., no full sentences). While not verbose, it is under-specified and does not provide a complete picture, earning a middle score.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return format, session requirements, and relationship to sibling tools. It does not explain what the user will receive (output lines) or how to interpret results. The schema covers parameters but not behavior, leaving the tool incomplete for reliable selection and 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (lines and session_name), so the description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate; the tool description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool reads output from an interactive session, a clear verb+resource combination. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like interactive_bash_list, the verb 'read' strongly implies retrieving output, distinguishing it from create/send/kill. It is specific enough for basic purpose understanding.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as interactive_bash_list or interactive_bash_send. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing session) or exclusions. The user must infer usage solely from the name.

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