pty_connect

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: create-or-reconnect semantics, session liveness, and the returned connect_url as the WebSocket endpoint. It does not cover lifecycle details like session limits or error behavior, but adds meaningful context beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value (reconnect behavior and connect_url output). No fluff.

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?

With a 3-parameter schema fully described and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose, reconnect behavior, and return value. Minor omissions (e.g., session lifecycle, error handling) are acceptable given the sibling tools that handle sending/control.

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 already documents all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond mentioning session_name reuse, so baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Create or reconnect to an interactive PTY session on a devbox,' clearly identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning reconnection and the connection URL for pty_send_command.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for establishing interactive PTY sessions and reusing session names reconnects. No explicit comparison to alternatives (e.g., execute_command) is provided, and no when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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