snapshot

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

The description reveals key behaviors: default incremental compact lines, cursor advancement. No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adequately covers cursor advancement and compaction, but could disclose more about side effects of reading (e.g., cursor mutation).

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose. No wasted words; every part adds information.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description could better clarify return format (e.g., lines vs events). It is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about output structure.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds context by linking defaults (compact lines, cursor advancement) to the relevant parameters (peek, full, events, no_compact). This ties the schema together.

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 clearly states it reads terminal output, defaulting to compact lines and advancing the cursor. This differentiates it from sibling tools like reset_cursor, clear_history, or send_command, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Since there are no other read tools among siblings, usage is implied but not clarified.

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