terminal_resize

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: the child receives its terminal-size notification, and a timeout retains the applied dimensions rather than rolling back. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, with the primary verb and object front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds behavioral or side-effect information.

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 core behavior and side effects are covered well, and no output schema exists, so return-value description is unnecessary. However, with five parameters and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the optional timing semantics underspecified for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the five parameters. cols, rows, and sessionId are inferable from names, but settleMs and settleTimeoutMs are ambiguous and never addressed, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a concrete action ('Resize the child terminal and emulated screen') and the observable outcome ('observe the result'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like terminal_input and terminal_snapshot.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use terminal_resize versus terminal_start, terminal_input, or terminal_snapshot. The phrase 'then observe the result' implies a follow-up observation, but it does not name alternatives or give decision criteria.

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