terminal_write

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that the tool returns a confirmation and, when read_after is true, the new terminal output, but it does not go deeper into side effects of command execution. The word "parancs" and openWorldHint convey active behavior, so the description is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and structured into Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a function, and there is no filler or needless repetition of schema details.

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 terminal write tool, the definition covers the essentials: target terminal, text, optional Enter, optional read-back, and return value. The open-terminal prerequisite is implied and reinforced by the schema's terminal_id description. It does not expand on command-execution risks, but the annotations and the word "parancs" communicate that this is an active operation.

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's Args line only lists the parameter names (terminal_id, data, enter, read_after) and adds no semantic detail. The nested schema provides full descriptions for all four fields, so the agent has the needed meaning, but the description itself contributes no additional parameter value.

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 first sentence, "Szoveg / parancs kuldese egy nyitott terminalba", names a concrete write action and a specific target resource (an open terminal). It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings like terminal_read, terminal_open, and terminal_ctrl_c by emphasizing the act of sending text or commands.

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 the terminal must already be open, and the schema connects terminal_id to terminal_open. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over keyboard_type or terminal_ctrl_c, and it provides no when-not-to-use guidance.

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