get_segment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (terminal output, pane, timestamp, raw byte range) and the raw option's behavior, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is a partial disclosure but lacks completeness for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and the key option in the second. No filler words, and every sentence contributes to understanding. It is well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 tool with four parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description covers the return value and the raw option but omits the meaning and usage of offset, which is a significant gap. The engagement default is covered in the schema, but offset remains undefined. The description also does not mention any pagination, limits, or error conditions. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for an agent to confidently invoke with all parameters 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 only 25% (only engagement is described). The description clarifies the raw parameter by explaining that raw=true returns original bytes, but it does not explain offset (which is likely a byte offset for pagination or range) or segment_id beyond its mandatory role. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining all parameters, especially offset, which remains cryptic. This partial compensation is insufficient.

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's function: retrieving recorded terminal output for a specified segment, including pane, timestamp, and raw byte range. It distinguishes itself from sibling getters like get_finding or get_engagement_summary by focusing on segment output, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 implies usage for retrieving a segment's terminal output, and the raw=true option is explained, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over others, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned. It leaves the decision to the agent without context on when to prefer this over list or other getter tools.

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