get_process_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the operation is a tail of session logs, which implies it is read-only, but it does not explain whether the output is incremental, whether it blocks, or what happens if the session no longer exists.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The main verb and target resource are front-loaded, and the prerequisite is a necessary addition rather than repetition.

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?

The description gives the essential purpose and a key precondition, but it is light for a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. An agent is left unsure about return format and parameter usage, though the tool is simple enough that this is not severely crippling.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needed to explain session_id and tail_lines. It identifies that a 'launched session' is involved, so session_id is implied, but tail_lines is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what the parameter controls beyond its name and default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Tail') and resource ('stdout/stderr log of a launched session'), making the tool's core function clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like session_status or crash_report, though the gdb/script scoping helps narrow it.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: the session must have been started by launch_gdb or launch_script. This tells the agent when the tool is applicable, but it does not describe when to prefer an alternative tool or when not to use it.

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