claim_terminal

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the exclusivity model, the refusal condition ('refused while another live session holds it'), and all three ways a claim ends, including the 15-minute idle expiry and MCP process exit. This is exactly the lifecycle and contention context annotations cannot express.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the reason, then the constraints. No repetition of the name or filler.

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 no explanation, and the contention/expiry semantics are fully covered. The remaining hole is the meaning and sourcing of the 'session' argument, which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is binding a specific session.

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?

The single required 'session' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never says what a session identifier looks like or where to obtain it (presumably from list_terminal_sessions). The phrase 'this session' is about the caller, not the parameter, so the gap is left unaddressed.

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 and resource ('Claim a Termius tab for this session') and immediately ties it to the run_command/send_key/send_text family, which no other sibling does. An agent can distinguish it from release_terminal or switch_terminal without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the precondition that makes the tool necessary (the command tools refuse unclaimed tabs) and gives a preference rule ('prefer a tab of your own over one a human or another agent is using'). It names release_terminal as the exit path but doesn't spell out when to claim versus simply calling switch_terminal.

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