terminal_open

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it creates a real PTY locally (so curses/screen programs work), uses SSH for remote hosts, and returns a terminal identifier plus initial prompt output. This gives the agent a clear model of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears first, followed by local/remote behavior, parameters, and return value. Every section contributes useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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 covers the essential behavior, local/remote distinction, return value, and parameter list. It is slightly light on lifecycle expectations, such as the need to later close the session, but the schema and sibling tool names compensate for most gaps.

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 description only lists the parameter names (host, shell, cwd, response_format) without explaining them. The input schema provides per-field descriptions, including host defaulting to local and response_format being markdown/json, so the schema carries most of the semantic weight.

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 that the tool opens a new, long-lived interactive shell session, and it distinguishes local PTY behavior from remote SSH behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like shell_run or terminal_write, but the core action and resource are unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by explaining local versus remote sessions and mentions that remote sessions use SSH on a configured machine. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as shell_run 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.