panelica_terminal_get_v1_terminal_ws

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

Annotations already set readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints; the description adds the ROOT-only restriction, required scope, and message formats. It explicitly restates read-only, which agrees with the annotations, so there is no contradiction.

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 endpoint purpose and constraints are front-loaded and the description is compact overall. Minor redundancy exists in 'Category: Terminal' and the repeated 'Read-only' line, but they do not meaningfully bloat the text.

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?

It covers direct request-side invocation and auth, but for a WebSocket tool it omits what the client receives, the connection lifecycle, and any need to first obtain a ws ticket from the sibling tool. Without an output schema, those gaps are material.

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 zero properties, so the baseline is 4; the description goes further by documenting the WebSocket frame payloads (input command and resize with cols/rows). This is the only parameter-like guidance available and is genuinely useful.

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 identifies a WebSocket endpoint for terminal access and provides the JSON message protocol, making it clearly distinct from the GET terminal and terminal ticket siblings. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 concrete operating context: ROOT-only, required scope terminal:access, and the exact message shapes to send. But it does not state when to prefer this tool over panelica_terminal_post_v1_terminal_ws_ticket or panelica_terminal_get_v1_terminal, and it omits any ticket prerequisite.

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