e2b_resize_pty

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action and selection mechanism, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, return behavior, or failure modes. The note about inferring the shape from process.PTY.Size and verifying docs signals uncertainty rather than providing behavioral clarity.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core operation stated first. The second sentence is a useful caveat but could be tighter; overall there is no filler or redundant repetition.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and related process-control siblings, the description is incomplete. It omits required sandboxId, selection constraints, return information, and error behavior. The 'verify docs' note is not a substitute for describing how the tool behaves.

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 low (38%), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that pid/tag select the process and cols/rows are the dimensions to resize. However, it does not explain the role of username, port, or accessToken, nor whether pid and tag are mutually exclusive or one is required.

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 specific operation ('Resize the PTY'), a target ('a running process'), the selectors ('pid or tag'), and the relevant fields ('cols/rows'). Among the sibling tools, none offer PTY resizing, so the purpose is unmistakable and well-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 makes the use case clear implicitly: use this when a running process's terminal dimensions need changing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, whether a PTY must already exist, or which sibling tools are alternatives for interacting with a process.

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