Read visible Telnet screen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description agrees by saying it 'Reads text'. It adds useful behavioral detail: the source is the real Windows console screen buffer, and the two modes return different scopes. It does not discuss edge cases, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden.

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 two sentences with no filler: it states the action, the source, and the meaningful mode distinction. The most important information is front-loaded in the first clause.

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 read-only tool with a simple parameter set and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand what is read, where it is read from, and how mode affects the result. It could be more explicit about how 'rows' behaves in tail mode, but overall the agent can correctly select and invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the critical mode parameter by defining 'visible' and 'tail'. However, 'rows' is only implied by 'recent buffer rows' and sessionId is left entirely to its name and schema format, so parameter coverage is incomplete.

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 states a specific action ('Reads text') on a clear resource ('the real Windows console screen buffer') and distinguishes the tool from sibling send/key/wait operations by framing it as a non-mutating read. The mode options 'visible' and 'tail' further clarify what the tool returns.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use mode=visible ('exactly what the user can see') versus mode=tail ('recent buffer rows'). It does not enumerate when not to use this tool compared with sibling read/check tools, but the mode guidance provides clear context for the main decision.

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