terminal_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: tmux metadata only, returns SESSION_DEAD if shell exited, and that output is via terminal_read/snapshot. This goes 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-loaded with the primary purpose and key distinction. No filler; every word adds value.

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 described fully. The description covers the core behavior and edge case (SESSION_DEAD), but leaves lease_id undocumented and does not clarify how pane_id/alias interact with lease_id. This is a noticeable gap for a tool with three parameters, though the tool is simple.

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 explain parameters. It mentions pane_id and alias but omits the required lease_id, which is puzzling since lease_id is the only required parameter. The relationship between lease_id and the optional identifiers is unclear, leaving a gap in selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 clearly states it returns the status of one terminal by pane_id or alias, with a specific detail (metadata only, SESSION_DEAD). It distinguishes from siblings like terminal_list (lists all) and terminal_read (reads 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 context 'Status of one terminal' implies use when you need status for a specific terminal, and it mentions output via terminal_read/snapshot, giving a sense of where to get the actual output. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives.

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