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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does earn credit for disclosing the key consequence: the underlying process is terminated, not merely detached or hidden. It still omits failure modes — what happens with an invalid or already-dead pid, whether the call is idempotent, and whether in-flight work is lost.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the most important fact, that the process dies, is included. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, but nothing in it is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter lifecycle tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essential facts — action and side effect — are present. What is missing, error behavior on stale pids, is minor at this complexity level.

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% and the sole parameter is documented as the process id returned by vterm_spawn, which even cross-references the sibling that produces it. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (close) and resource (a visible terminal window), with a parenthetical that disambiguates what closing means: the process is terminated. That distinguishes it cleanly from vterm_spawn, vterm_send and vterm_read, which create, write to, and read terminals.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb-resource pair and the sibling set, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, no mention of cleanup duties, and no declaration that this is the counterpart to vterm_spawn. An agent must infer that from tool names alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does valuable work by clarifying this reads the console buffer rather than capturing pixels. However, it omits key behavior an agent needs: whether the window must be foregrounded/visible for the read to succeed, what happens for an invalid or closed pid, and whether only the viewport (not scrollback) is returned.

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?

One sentence with the core action front-loaded ('Read exactly what is currently rendered') and the parenthetical qualifiers each eliminating a plausible misinterpretation (screenshot, other windows). Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool, the description covers what is read and from where, but with no output schema it should say more about the returned shape (plain rendered text? whitespace/ANSI preserved? viewport-only vs scrollback) and about failure modes. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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% and the single pid parameter is already documented as 'Process id returned by vterm_spawn', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is exactly the baseline 3 case for high coverage.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('read exactly what is currently rendered on screen') plus the mechanism ('real Windows Console API, not a screenshot'), which makes the operation unmistakable. It never names vterm_spawn/vterm_send/vterm_close, so routing is inferred from the operation described rather than explicitly stated.

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?

The description never says when to call this versus waiting, re-sending input, or checking a different window; only the phrase 'in a visible terminal window' hints at a precondition. An agent must derive the usage pattern (e.g. read after vterm_send to verify output) entirely on its own.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: focus dependency, no focus stealing, and non-blocking execution. However, it does not explain what happens if the window lacks focus or what the immediate return value is, leaving some failure-mode and response behavior unspecified.

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 three tight sentences, front-loads the core action, then gives focus constraints and the required follow-up. There is no redundant or filler 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?

Given full parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: focus requirements and the need to call vterm_read afterward. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though failure behavior when unfocused is not fully specified.

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%, so the schema already documents pid, text, enter, and special keys in detail. The description adds only general context about keystrokes and does not supplement parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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: send keystrokes to a visible terminal window. It clarifies the action as equivalent to typing on a keyboard, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vterm_spawn, vterm_read, and vterm_close.

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 explicitly states the focus prerequisite (true right after vterm_spawn or after user interaction), warns that it does not forcibly steal focus, and directs the agent to call vterm_read afterward. This gives clear when-to-use context and sequencing relative to sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral fact: this creates a real, user-visible window on their screen — an observable side effect an agent must not trigger casually. It also implies a lifecycle requiring vterm_close. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., headless/no interactive session) or whether the window steals focus, keeping it below a 5.

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: the first defines the action and its visible-window nature, the second gives the return value and the follow-up tools. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (a visible window appears) is front-loaded.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter spawn tool with no output schema, the description supplies the birth-to-death lifecycle (spawn → send/read → close) and explicitly states the pid return, which substitutes for the missing output schema. Minor gap: no note on environment prerequisites or whether multiple windows are permitted.

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% and the single optional cwd parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no information about cwd semantics (e.g., whether it must exist or how paths are resolved) beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb (open/spawn) and resource (a PowerShell console window) plus the distinguishing trait that it is 'genuinely visible' to the user, which separates it from any hypothetical headless execution. It also declares the return value (pid) and maps it to the sibling tools that consume 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?

The description clearly establishes the workflow: spawn first, then use the returned pid with vterm_send / vterm_read / vterm_close, naming all three siblings. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to reuse an existing session rather than spawn a new window), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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