jumpserver_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: credentials are redacted by the observer, and it returns an event stream plus current state, implying freshness/refresh semantics rather than a static read.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then how to poll, then when to use it. Every sentence carries information with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys what comes back (event stream contents + current state) and the redaction behavior. It never sketches the shape/ordering of returned events, so an agent knows the contents but not the structure.

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 (sinceSeq, maxChars) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces sinceSeq's incremental-polling purpose but adds no syntax or default detail beyond it ('omit for the full scrollback' is already in the schema), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: reads the recent PTY event stream (output chunks, state transitions, target changes) plus current state. This is far more specific than a generic 'status' or 'inspect', but it never explicitly names which sibling it replaces, so it stops short of full 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios ('show the user what the terminal looks like now', 'diagnose a stuck menu') and how to poll incrementally. It does not name alternatives (e.g. inspect/status) or state when not to use it, so no exclusions.

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