read_terminal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: output is ANSI-stripped, blank runs collapsed, and scrollback is capped – though the cap is not quantified. It omits what happens when `session` is null or invalid.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler, with the output transformation front-loaded and the default behavior stated before the alternate mode. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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-value documentation is not required, and the description covers mode selection and output normalization adequately. The remaining gap is the unexplained `session` parameter, which matters in a multi-session toolset.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does explain `lines` (tail of the screen) and `scrollback` (full history, capped), but `session` — the parameter an agent most needs given many terminal siblings — is entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Read terminal text') plus transformation details (ANSI stripped, blank runs collapsed). It is implicitly distinguishable from write-side siblings like send_text and run_command, but it never names them, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 explains the two read modes (default screen tail vs scrollback history) and which flag selects each, which is useful usage guidance. It gives no guidance on when to use this versus list_terminal_sessions or run_command, and no mention that `session` selects among terminals.

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