process.output

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

The readOnlyHint already signals a safe read, and the description adds the useful behavioral trait that output is read incrementally via a pull cursor rather than returned as a single snapshot. It does not contradict the annotation, though cursor/EOF mechanics are left unspecified.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant detail.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is thin: an agent still does not know what a pull cursor returns, how to start or advance it, or what end-of-stream/empty output looks like. The readOnlyHint covers safety but not invocation details.

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 needs to compensate. It only ties the 'pull cursor' idea to the cursor concept and generally references process output, but it never explains the roles of task_id and process_id or how the cursor is initialized and advanced.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('process stdout/stderr'), and a distinguishing mechanism ('incrementally from a pull cursor'). This makes it easy to separate from siblings like process.status or process.start.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as process.status. The incremental pull-cursor phrasing implies a streaming use case, but no when/when-not conditions or named alternatives are provided.

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