read_output

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a general 'read' action and does not mention key behaviors such as whether reading blocks or waits for output, whether it consumes output, how errors (e.g., invalid session_id) are handled, or what the return format looks like. The timeout parameter suggests waiting behavior, but the description omits this entirely.

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, grammatically complete sentence. It is concise and front-loaded, stating the action and resource without any redundant words. No space is wasted, though it may be too brief for the tool's needs.

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 tool has three parameters and no output schema or annotations, so a rich description is necessary. The description does not explain what constitutes an 'active interactive session', how to obtain a session_id, the meaning of lines/timeout, or the expected return value. This is insufficient context for an agent to reliably invoke the tool in the presence of numerous session-related siblings.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention session_id, lines, or timeout at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema field names, leaving agents with no guidance on how to set these values (e.g., what 'lines' means, how timeout affects behavior).

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 clear verb ('Read') and resource ('output from any active interactive session'), so it conveys the tool's core function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the phrase 'active interactive session' implies it is for reading output from sessions, distinguishing it from tools like send_input or parse_tool_output.

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 usage when an active interactive session exists and you need its output, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like exec_stream or parse_tool_output. There are no exclusions or conditions stated, leaving usage as an implied inference.

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