terminal_read

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses non-consuming reads, bounded wait behavior, absolute cursor semantics, CURSOR_EXPIRED behavior with base_cursor, stream label retention, and when output_complete becomes true. These are valuable behavioral details not captured by 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 dense and front-loaded: it starts with the core operation, then clarifies cursor semantics, continuation, error handling, stream labels, and completion. Every sentence adds useful operational detail with no filler.

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?

Given readOnly annotations and an output schema, the description covers the important behavioral details an agent needs: cursor handling, continuation, expiry behavior, stream labels, and completion. It is only missing explicit guidance for max_bytes and session_id.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains cursor semantics and implies bounded wait behavior for wait_ms, but max_bytes and session_id are not explained, leaving half the parameters without additional meaning beyond the schema.

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: read non-consuming output records from a terminal session. It clearly distinguishes the operation from terminal_write by specifying non-consuming reads, and from terminal_status/start/terminate by focusing on output records.

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 clear usage context for reading output and explicitly says to continue with next_cursor. However, it does not name alternatives such as terminal_status or state when not to use this tool versus other terminal siblings.

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