terminal_tail_bound

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the output is sanitized, with no mention of whether resolution can fail, what sanitization strips, whether the operation has side effects, or what happens when the binding does not exist.

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 filler, and the main verb and object are front-loaded. It loses points only because the unexplained term 'logical binding' makes the sentence less informative than it appears.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the meaning of 'lines', the nature of the binding, the returned output format, or how this tool relates to terminal_tail and terminal_get_binding — all of which an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that 'binding' is resolved logically, but it says nothing about the 'lines' parameter — not even that it controls the number of output lines — and does not specify the binding's format or namespace.

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 identifies a specific operation — returning sanitized output after resolving a binding — but relies on the unexplained term 'logical binding' and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like terminal_tail or terminal_get_binding. It is not a tautology, but the purpose is too vague for reliable selection.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name hints that it tails output for a bound target, but the description never states a use case, precondition, or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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