terminal_list_bindings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', implying read-only, but does not explain whether it shows both persistent bindings and transient session state, whether authentication is required, or whether any side effects occur. The two-part output is a hint but is not elaborated.

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 eight-word sentence with no filler and a front-loaded verb. Every word earns its place, though the meaning is slightly under-specified for a tool family with many closely related siblings.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the core invocation: calling the tool requires no arguments. However, without annotations or context clarifying what 'current session state' includes and how it differs from terminal_status, the entry is not fully complete for an agent choosing among many terminal tools.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to describe. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 ('List') and resource ('persistent logical bindings' and 'current session state'), clearly indicating a read operation. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from tools like terminal_get_binding and terminal_bind, though it does not explicitly contrast with terminal_status or terminal_list_sessions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as terminal_list_sessions or terminal_status. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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