pty_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the three control actions, which is transparent about the core operations, but it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., close terminates the session, signals may kill processes) or prerequisites (e.g., session must already exist). It is not misleading but minimal.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource scope, and every word adds value. It is concise without unnecessary detail.

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 the comprehensive schema and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks important context about session lifecycle, side effects, and usage prerequisites, which would be valuable for a control tool.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including the action enum and requirements for cols/rows. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Control'), identifies the resource ('existing PTY session'), and explicitly lists the supported actions (resize, signal, close). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like pty_send_command and pty_connect.

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 implies when to use the tool (for resizing, signaling, or closing an existing PTY session) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives. It lacks guidance such as 'use pty_send_command for sending input' or 'create a session first with pty_connect'.

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