read_output

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states reading and optional clearing but does not clarify that the tool does not wait for output, the behavior if the session is closed, or what happens when the buffer is empty. The transparency is minimal but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with only 10 words. Every word is meaningful, and there is no redundancy. It achieves maximum information density.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it could explicitly note that reading is non-blocking and that the buffer content is returned. The completeness is almost adequate but lacks a small nuance.

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 only hints at the clear_buffer parameter ('optionally clear it') but provides no explanation for session_id. Default values are not mentioned. The parameter semantics are insufficiently explained.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('buffered output'), and the condition ('from an active SSH session') with an optional clearing behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_input (writes) or wait_for_output (waits).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it reads the current buffer without waiting, which is key to differentiating from wait_for_output. The description lacks usage context.

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