terminal_tail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that output is sanitized and limited to allowed sessions, which is useful, but it does not explain what sanitization removes, what happens for disallowed sessions, or whether this is a pure read operation beyond the word 'Return'.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, and the purpose is front-loaded. It sacrifices detail for brevity, but as a concise statement of the tool's core action it is efficient.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of `lines`, the behavior of sanitization, how to identify an allowed session, and how this differs from sibling tools. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly with only this description.

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 needed to compensate. It relates `session` to a tmux session and implies recency, but it does not explain the `lines` parameter, the default value of 200, or any constraints. The description adds little beyond what the parameter names already communicate.

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 identifies a distinct resource: sanitized recent output from an allowed tmux session. It distinguishes the tool from a raw capture at a basic level, but it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like terminal_capture or terminal_tail_bound.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of terminal_capture, terminal_status, or terminal_tail_bound. The description implies a use case (viewing recent output) but does not state exclusions or alternatives, so an agent would have to infer the appropriate selection.

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