terminal_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses blocking/quiet-detection behavior, timeout-driven termination, and that output includes pager screens, password prompts, banners and shell output with 'no prompt shape required.' It omits an important trait — whether reading consumes the buffer or is repeatable — plus any auth/permission requirements.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: behavior + termination condition, then return content, then sibling routing. Core semantics are front-loaded and there is no 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-value documentation is not required, and the description still usefully previews the content classes. Without annotations it should ideally cover buffer-consumption semantics and error behavior on invalid/expired sessions, which are the remaining gaps.

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 compensate and it only partly does: it gives functional meaning to timeout ('until the stream is quiet or timeout expires'), but no units, no default (null), and no guidance on values. session_id gets no explanation at all, though it is self-evident from the sibling session tools.

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+resource (read terminal output) and adds the termination semantics ('until the stream is quiet or timeout expires'), which is more than a bare restatement. It partially distinguishes itself from siblings by naming read_output and session_status for offsets/buffered history, though the boundary between terminal_read and read_output remains somewhat blurred.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent elsewhere for a key need: 'Use session_status and read_output for offsets and buffered history.' That is a clear alternative pointer, but there is no when-not condition (e.g., when to prefer read_output entirely) and no prerequisite or auth guidance.

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