mngt_telnettimeout

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 does disclose that this is a write operation requiring confirmation, which is useful. However, it doesn't explain what the confirmation flow is, what happens on success/failure, whether the change is immediate or requires a commit/reboot, or what side effects may occur. The sibling sys_commit suggests changes may need committing, but the description doesn't say.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core action and the critical write/confirmation caveat. It is concise and scannable, though it could earn a 5 by adding a brief note on the confirmation flow without bloating.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It lacks the confirmation workflow, parameter semantics, and post-condition behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on the provided text.

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 for the four parameters. It only explains 'minutes' implicitly via the tool name ('timeout'), and leaves user_code, confirm_token, and confirmation_id entirely unexplained. The confirmation-related parameters are especially opaque — an agent cannot tell how they relate to the '(requires confirmation)' note without more detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set telnet session timeout'. It also flags the operation as a write requiring confirmation, which distinguishes it from the many read-only sibling tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the mngt_* siblings (e.g., mngt_sshtimeout) make the resource clear 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The '(write — requires confirmation)' hint implies it is a mutating operation, but it doesn't state prerequisites, when confirmation is needed, or how to obtain the confirmation token. An agent would have to infer usage from the parameter names.

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