terminal_list

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that output bodies are not included, which is a limitation an agent would need to know. It also clarifies that only 'managed terminals' are returned, adding precision beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately state the key requirement and limitation. No wasted words; every clause adds meaning.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present) and the coverage provided by annotations, the description is complete. It covers the essential aspects: what is listed, the required input, and a critical non-goal. The output schema handles return-value detail.

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 must compensate. It mentions lease_id and indicates it is required, but does not explain what lease_id represents beyond being associated with a project. This adds some meaning but leaves the parameter's origin or format ambiguous.

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 states a specific action ('List managed terminals') with a clear scope ('for the project of lease_id'). It also distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly noting it does not include output bodies, setting it apart from terminal_read or terminal_snapshot.

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?

It clearly identifies the required input (lease_id) and implies the use case: listing terminals for a specific project. While it does not name alternative tools, the exclusion of output bodies provides practical guidance on when not to use this tool.

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