get_terminal_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully enumerates the five terminal states and 'Live' implies the value is current at call time, but it says nothing about permissions, failure modes for an invalid terminal_id, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the key scope constraint ('one terminal') first and the state enumeration after. Nothing is wasted.

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 is simple (one required param) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained – though the state list partly duplicates it. What is missing is how to source terminal_id and any usage context, leaving the definition minimally viable.

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% – terminal_id has no description at all. The description only says 'one terminal' and never explains the id's format or where to obtain it (e.g., from list_sessions or launch_session), so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope ('Live status of one terminal') and enumerates the possible states, which lets an agent distinguish it from get_terminal_output (output text) and fleet_status (aggregate). It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_terminal_output or fleet_status, and no prerequisites. 'Live' hints at a polling/monitoring context but the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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