read_output

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

The description discloses blocking behavior and timeout handling, and clarifies that returning empty output on timeout is not an error. In the absence of annotations, this provides good transparency. However, it does not mention behavior on invalid session_id or process termination.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is structured and each sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers main use cases and return behavior. Lacks details on error handling for invalid session_id or process lifecycle. With no output schema, return values are partially described. Overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter's purpose, defaults, and constraints (e.g., session_id from start_process, strip_ansi removes ANSI codes, timeout in seconds, max_lines with 0 meaning unlimited).

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 reads new output from an interactive process since the last read, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_input and start_process.

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 explains behavior (waits up to timeout, returns empty on timeout) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_and_read. Usage is implied but not contrasted.

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