pty_resize

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, non-read-only operation, implying it modifies state. The description doesn't add any behavioral context beyond what annotations already say — it doesn't explain what gets destroyed, whether resizing affects running processes, or any side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description could add value but doesn't. It also doesn't contradict annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It's efficient and not verbose, but it may be too terse given the complexity and missing details. However, it avoids waste, so it scores well on structure.

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 has 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral implications. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without additional information.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It fails to mention the required 'id' parameter or the optional 'cols' and 'rows' parameters, their meanings, formats, or constraints. The agent gets no additional semantic guidance beyond the schema, which itself has no descriptions.

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 states a specific verb (Resize) and resource (PTY terminal), so the agent understands the general action. However, it lacks any detail about what resizing entails (e.g., terminal dimensions, cursor behavior) and doesn't differentiate this from other terminal control tools like pty_write or pty_read. It's minimally viable but generic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as browser_resize or other terminal tools. The description doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or scenarios where resizing is needed. It simply states the action without context.

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