stty

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but description clarifies that changes are possible only when allow_change is enabled, effectively describing the conditional mutability. It also mentions the JSON output format. However, it does not detail potential side effects or requirements (e.g., permissions).

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?

Description is four sentences, front-loading the main purpose, then covering conditions, output, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value and is clearly structured.

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 purpose, return format, and usage context. However, it does not explain the 'raw' parameter behavior (which changes output format) nor the structure of the JSON output. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on the return value 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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context for allow_change and settings but does not explain parameter values (e.g., what 'sane' means in settings). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it inspects or modifies terminal device settings with specific examples (baud rate, line discipline, control characters). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'tty' tool by noting that 'tty' is for simple TTY detection.

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?

Explicit guidance provided: 'Use to query terminal state before operations that depend on it. Not for simple TTY detection — use 'tty' to check if stdin is a terminal.' Also explains when changes are applicable (only with --allow_change).

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