Read Visible Claude Code TUI Screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior through 'capture' and 'monitor', but doesn't explicitly state that it doesn't modify the TUI or describe what happens if the TUI isn't running. It adds some context about persistence and tmux-hosting, but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action, target, and purpose. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'capture' and includes essential context without unnecessary words.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain parameters, return format, and edge cases. It explains the core purpose but omits what cwd and lines mean, what the returned text looks like, and any failure behavior. This is insufficient for reliable invocation in the given sibling context.

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 input schema provides no descriptions for cwd or lines, and the tool description does not mention either parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain what these parameters control, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and constraints.

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 captures recent text from a persistent tmux-hosted Claude Code TUI, with a specific purpose of monitoring what the user sees. This distinctly separates it from sibling tools that send commands or manage the TUI, so the verb and resource are specific and 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 when to use it (for monitoring what the user sees), which gives some context. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like companion_tui_raw or companion_recent, nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance. The use case is clear but not fully differentiated.

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