Text Snapshot

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 effectively communicates key behavioral traits: it's a capture operation (implying read-only), it returns plain text (not images), and it has performance characteristics ('faster and cheaper'). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first defines the core functionality, the second provides crucial usage guidance. There's zero wasted text and it's front-loaded with the essential 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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering purpose, usage context, and behavioral characteristics. The main gap is the lack of information about return format (though 'plain text' gives some indication) and error handling, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'sessionId' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage. This meets the baseline expectation.

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 specific action ('capture the terminal buffer as plain text'), identifies the resource ('terminal buffer'), and distinguishes it from a sibling tool ('faster and cheaper than a screenshot'). It provides a precise verb+resource combination with explicit sibling differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('use this when you only need the text content') and provides a clear alternative ('faster and cheaper than a screenshot'), which directly references the sibling 'screenshot' tool. This gives perfect guidance on tool selection.

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