read_process_output

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

The description discloses waiting behavior, status return, and incremental reading. However, it doesn't clarify whether output is consumed upon reading or if there are side effects, which is a minor gap.

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?

The description is brief and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second explains behavior, third gives usage advice. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple read tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers behavior, return values, and usage pattern. It is complete enough for the agent to use correctly.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description reinforces timeout_seconds but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 the tool reads accumulated output of an active process. It uses a specific verb ('Lee') and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like start_process, kill_process, and interact_with_process.

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 advises calling the tool repeatedly for incremental output and explains behavior when process finishes. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context is clear compared to sibling tools.

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