pty_start

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a local, non-read-only, non-idempotent operation. The description adds that a command runs inside the configured shell or that file+args starts an executable directly, but it does not describe persistence, interaction lifecycle, or other side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 front-loaded with the core action and terminal backing, then moves to usage and invocation details. Every sentence adds distinct information with no wasted wording.

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 9-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It explains the main command/file/args invocation pattern but omits behavioral meaning for most parameters, making it insufficient for reliable parameter selection.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the relationship between command, file, and args, but leaves cwd, cols, rows, name, waitMs, and resourceWaitMs completely undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Start a real interactive terminal backed by Windows ConPTY.' It also identifies the use cases (REPLs, debuggers, SSH/TUI programs, terminal-requiring CLIs), which implicitly distinguishes it from non-terminal process and command tools. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Use for REPLs, debuggers, SSH/TUI programs and CLIs that require a terminal' gives clear positive usage guidance. It does not provide when-not conditions or name alternatives such as run_command or process_start, so it is not fully explicit.

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