terminal_start

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 mentions the tool is 'persistent' and returns a session id, but does not disclose side effects, resource consumption, timeout behavior, cleanup requirements (e.g., using 'terminal_stop'), or any security/permissions context. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavioral impact.

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 no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core action and result. However, it could include a bit more detail without losing conciseness, hence not a perfect 5.

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 complexity (starting a persistent process with state) and the absence of output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks information on how to interact with the session (via other terminal tools), the lifetime of the session, or any constraints. More context is needed for complete understanding.

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%, meaning the schema has no descriptions for 'cwd' or 'command'. The tool description does not explain what these parameters do or provide any examples. The agent must infer from parameter names alone, which is inadequate for reliable usage.

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 starts a persistent terminal process and returns a session id. It uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('persistent terminal process'), and the outcome ('return a session id') is clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'run_command' (one-off execution) and 'terminal_list'/'terminal_read'/'terminal_stop'/'terminal_write' (control operations on existing sessions).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use 'terminal_start' over 'run_command' for a non-interactive command, or how to handle the session after creation. Missing usage context reduces the agent's ability to choose the correct tool.

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