memo_terminal_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: that the result is conditional on legacy TTY input being enabled ('empty while legacy TTY input is disabled'), which is exactly the kind of behavioral quirk an agent needs to know. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 delivers the purpose plus a critical conditional caveat. There's some ambiguity in the phrase 'empty while legacy TTY input is disabled' that could be clearer, but no wasted words are present. It's economically written and front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description flags the key caveat (empty when legacy TTY disabled) which is the main behavioral context an agent needs. For a zero-parameter read tool with annotations fully covering the safety profile, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage (as nothing exists to document). The description adds no parameter information since there are none. With no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric, and the description's note about the legacy TTY state effectively explains the tool's input-free nature as a state readout.

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 names a specific resource ('deliverable terminals') with the verb 'list', making the purpose clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the term 'deliverable terminals' is a distinct concept among the many memo_* tools, and the description differentiates by noting it returns 'deliverable' terminals specifically, which is narrowly scoped enough.

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 alludes to when it's useful via 'empty while legacy TTY input is disabled', implying this tool reflects legacy terminal state. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memo_get or memo_list, and offers no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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