Open console viewing

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

Annotations only indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and not open-world. The description goes far beyond this by disclosing that it opens on the declared service host, never a remote client, and is never triggered automatically. It also reveals that a failed or uncertain open keeps the attempt, which is critical behavioral context for the agent to handle retries correctly.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary constraints and cross-references. Every sentence carries essential information—no filler. It is structured logically: purpose, prerequisites, behavioral constraints, and failure handling.

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 tool with 5 required parameters, no output schema, and only false annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, where it operates, what it requires, and how to handle failures. It appropriately defers to relay_console_resolve for deeper status semantics, and nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is only 20% (only 'reason' has a description). The description compensates fully by explaining that console_id and attempt_id come from relay_console_resolve, that userRequested must be true (which it enforces as const), that reason captures intent, and that expected is what the human should expect to see. This gives the agent the semantic meaning needed to construct valid calls.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Open console viewing for the owned lease', and immediately constrains it to explicit user requests. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing relay_console_resolve and relay_acquire, clarifying it is never automatically triggered by relay_acquire's vnc option. The purpose is unambiguous and clearly differentiated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only after an explicit user request to watch. It also gives what-not-to-do: never triggered automatically by relay_acquire's vnc option. It instructs that a failed or uncertain open should be resolved or canceled rather than re-opened, effectively routing the agent to the correct alternative actions (relay_console_resolve/relay_console_cancel).

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