terminal_resize

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description only restates that the terminal size is set and adds the curses use-case, which is application context rather than a behavioral trait such as side effects, prerequisites, or errors.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. The Args/Returns block adds structural information without excessive verbosity, though the return type is somewhat redundant given the existing output schema.

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 idempotent terminal-resize operation, the description, annotations, and schema together provide enough to invoke it correctly. It lacks only minor context such as requiring an already-open terminal, which is implied by the terminal_id parameter and sibling terminal tools.

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 lists 'terminal_id, cols, rows' in the Args section but gives no meaning for these fields. Since the context signal reports 0% schema description coverage for the top-level params object, the description fails to compensate; the semantic detail is left entirely to the nested $defs, which the agent may or may not resolve.

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 opens with 'Setting the size of a terminal (PTY)', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the operation. It also contextualizes the purpose for curses programs (htop, vim), but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling terminal tools such as terminal_open or terminal_write.

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 provides a concrete use case ('important for curses programs') that implies when the resize is needed, but it neither names alternative tools nor states when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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