terminal_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List active terminal sessions' and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, whether pagination is supported (though implied by 'limit'), or what the default status behavior is. This leaves important behavioral traits unstated.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words, which earns points for brevity. However, it is so terse that it omits useful behavioral detail, so it is not fully effective despite being concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide some context about return values and how results relate to sibling tools. It does not explain what the response contains, whether terminal identifiers are returned, or how to use results with terminal_get_info or terminal_operate. The default status behavior is also ambiguous given the status_filter parameter.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and provides detailed meanings for all three parameters, including the limit range, status enum values, and substring matching semantics. The description itself adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active terminal sessions'). It differentiates from sibling operations like terminal_operate and terminal_close by focusing on listing, though it does not explicitly name them. The word 'active' is slightly inconsistent with the status_filter parameter that allows idle and all.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like terminal_get_info or terminal_operate. There is no mention of typical workflows, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema.

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