onda_terminal_subscribe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the long-lived nature, the sessionId return, the current buffer snapshot, the concurrency cap of 4, and the UI presence indicator. It omits error behavior when the cap is exceeded or explicit termination steps, but these are minor gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core action, the second describes the return values and their purpose, and the third adds critical constraints. No redundant phrases or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main return values (sessionId and buffer snapshot) and the usage flow (attach listener, poll later). It lacks details on error handling or lifecycle after subscription, but for the tool's complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds a small extra detail about the listener name as a presence indicator, but this mostly overlaps with the schema's description. Thus the baseline of 3 is appropriate—no significant additional semantics are provided.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Attach a long-lived listener to a terminal's output stream.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like onda_terminal_read or onda_terminal_poll, and the mention of returning a sessionId for use with onda_terminal_poll solidifies its unique role.

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?

It explicitly states this returns a sessionId for use with onda_terminal_poll, implying a subscribe-then-poll workflow. The sibling list further clarifies its role, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over one-shot reads or exclude alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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