Read Region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading text but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated), error handling (e.g., invalid coordinates), or performance characteristics. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a terminal interaction tool with 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information about return values (e.g., format of the text, error responses), behavioral context (as noted in transparency), and usage guidelines. This makes it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (sessionId, row, col, width, height). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a rectangular region, which is already clear from the parameter names. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Read') and resource ('rectangular region of the terminal buffer as text'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'screenshot' or 'wait_for_text', but the specificity of reading text from a defined region is reasonably distinct.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'screenshot' (which might capture visual output) or 'wait_for_text' (which monitors for text). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites might exist (e.g., needing an active session).

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