get_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what gets captured (terminal output) and distinguishes between window types, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output returns, if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. It provides some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word earns its place - the first sentence states the core function, and the second provides essential qualification about window options.

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 2 parameters with 50% schema coverage and no output schema or annotations, the description provides basic context about window selection but doesn't fully compensate for the missing information. It doesn't explain what format the output returns, how to interpret it, or provide complete parameter semantics. For a tool that retrieves terminal output, more guidance on response format would be helpful.

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 adds meaning for the 'window_name' parameter by explaining the difference between 'ui' and 'exec' windows, which complements the 50% schema description coverage. However, it doesn't mention the 'workspace_id' parameter at all, leaving half of the parameters without semantic context 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current terminal output'), and distinguishes between UI and background windows. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send_input' or 'execute_command' that might also interact with terminal output.

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 provides implied usage guidance by explaining when to use 'exec' window versus default 'ui' window, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_command' for running commands or 'send_input' for sending input. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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