get_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool works for running or completed sessions and is non-destructive in implication, but it doesn't state whether the buffer is cleared, if it blocks, or any side effects. This is acceptable but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the main action and then a practical use case. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the description should clarify return values. It says 'output buffer' but does not specify the format or whether it returns all output or only new output. There is also implied default session behavior only in the schema, not the 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 coverage is 100% because sessionId has a description ('Session ID (defaults to active session)'). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the current output buffer from a session, specifying both running and completed sessions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chat, respond, and list_sessions, which serve different purposes.

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?

It explicitly mentions 'Useful for checking progress,' giving clear context for when to use this tool. While it doesn't list exclusions or compare to alternatives, the purpose is distinct enough among siblings.

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