msf_process_resize

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that the foreground terminal program is notified, but it does not explain failure behavior or what happens to the foreground process during the resize.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a concise action description, even if it omits necessary detail elsewhere.

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?

The core action and notification side effect are clear, and an output schema plus annotations reduce the need to describe return values or safety. However, with three required parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is not fully complete for a destructive PTY operation.

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 schema gives only names and min/max constraints for process_id, rows, and columns. The description does not identify what process_id refers to or explain how rows and columns map to terminal dimensions, adding little beyond the schema.

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 ('Resize') and resource ('persistent PTY'), and adds the side effect of notifying the foreground program. It is distinguishable from sibling process read/write/signal tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance. It only implies that the tool applies when a PTY's dimensions need changing, leaving the agent to infer that from the verb.

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