terminal_read

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

The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it returns empty if nothing happened. It also implies an incremental read of newly accumulated output. However, it does not disclose potential blocking behavior related to drain_seconds or whether reading consumes the buffer. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description offering some extra behavior context but omitting these nuances is acceptable.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clean Args/Returns block. No filler or repetition. The front-loaded sentence immediately conveys the core function, making it easy to scan.

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 simple read tool, the description covers the basic operation and return behavior, and the schema handles parameter constraints. However, it omits important context: how to obtain a valid terminal_id (e.g., from terminal_list), whether the terminal must already be open, and what happens if the terminal does not exist. These gaps prevent a fully self-sufficient call in an unfamiliar environment.

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 (terminal_id, drain_seconds) without explaining their format, source, or effect. The schema contains short Hungarian descriptions, but the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage, meaning the description must compensate for the lack of usable parameter documentation. It does not, leaving the agent to guess what values are valid and how drain_seconds influences the call.

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 identifies a specific read operation: 'reading the new output accumulated for the given terminal'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope ('new output') distinguishes it from sibling tools like terminal_write or terminal_list. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open terminal), and does not explain how this relates to siblings like terminal_wait or terminal_list. Usage context must be entirely inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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