read_session_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one trait — that max_chars truncates to the tail rather than the head — but says nothing about the 'mode' parameter's behavior, whether reads are non-destructive, whether output is consumed, or whether the call blocks.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary addressing modes and followed by the one non-obvious parameter behavior. No waste, though the terseness leaves useful information out.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with no annotations and an undocumented 'mode' parameter, the description leaves meaningful gaps for a tool whose behavior is entirely unstructured.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It covers terminal_id/session_name usage and clarifies the semantics of max_chars (tail-only), but the 'mode' parameter is never mentioned despite defaulting to 'full', leaving a major gap in a zero-coverage schema.

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 ('Read output') and clarifies the two addressing modes (terminal id or session name). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_terminal_output, which a reader could easily confuse with this tool.

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 gives an implicit conditional for choosing between terminal_id and session_name ('when the session has one terminal'), which is useful routing guidance. It stops short of saying when to prefer this tool over get_terminal_output or get_terminal_status, leaving the main alternative unaddressed.

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