terminal_capture

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral traits: the capture is sanitized and capped by configuration, and 'Return' suggests a read-only operation. But it omits details about side effects, authentication needs, or what 'sanitized' actually covers.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler. The key qualifiers ('larger', 'sanitized', 'capped by configuration') are front-loaded and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

With two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a description that ignores parameter semantics, this is too thin. The description leaves start_line semantics, session format, the configuration cap, and the return shape unexplained, and it doesn't clearly position the tool among its siblings.

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%, and the description adds no meaningful detail about the 'session' or 'start_line' parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not explain how start_line affects the capture or what values are valid, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clearly scoped resource ('sanitized scrollback capture'). The qualifiers 'larger' and 'capped by configuration' add useful distinguishing detail, but it doesn't explicitly reference a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'larger' implies a comparison to some smaller/default capture and gives a mild hint about when this tool is appropriate. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer terminal_capture over terminal_tail or other siblings, nor does it give any exclusions.

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