onda_terminal_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns active terminals with specific metadata fields and that filtering is optional, which goes beyond the tool name. It lacks details on edge cases like empty results or ordering, but the primary behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with 'List active terminals.' It then delivers the return structure and use case in a few short sentences, with no redundant information.

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 simple list-with-filters tool, the description covers purpose, return format, and usage context. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by explicit field enumeration, and the optional parameters are already detailed in the schema.

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 schema already fully describes both parameters ('Filter: only terminals in this window.' and '...workspace.') with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'optional filters' adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active terminals'), and enumerates the exact fields returned, making its function unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling terminal tools by being the listing operation and references a distinct use case.

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?

States 'Use the optional filters to scope the list' and highlights when it is 'Essential to disambiguate which terminal belongs to which workspace/window when many are alive.' This provides clear context but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools (none exist for listing).

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