Run terminal operations

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explicitly warns that starting or interacting with commands can change local or external state and that force termination can lose unsaved process work, while reading, waiting, and listing do not mutate the session. This clarifies the destructive/non-destructive split across operations and matches the annotation profile.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and operation list, followed by the crucial safety caveats. Every sentence contributes selection guidance or behavioral warning with no redundancy.

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 description covers when to use the tool, the need to select exactly one operation, validation behavior, and the mutation profile of each operation family. Since an output schema exists and the input schema fully documents each operation's parameters, no critical selection or invocation information is missing.

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 100%, and the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for operation-specific parameters such as pid, offset, pattern, and timeout_ms. The description only adds a structural note about per-operation validation, not new meaning for individual parameters.

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 opens with a specific trigger condition ('when the task needs a shell command or an existing ReMCP terminal session') and enumerates the operation families: start, read, wait, interact, stop, and list sessions. This clearly distinguishes the terminal domain from sibling tools like manage_files or control_computer.

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool and emphasizes that exactly one operation must be chosen, with parameters validated against that operation's schema. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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