select_terminal

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses that the switch affects subsequent tool calls and persists until server restart. It also explains the install auto-scan behavior. Minor omission: no mention of error conditions or required permissions.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds unique value. No wasted words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and scope (session persistence). Lacks guidance on parameter combinations or error handling, but sufficient for a simple state-change 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 0%, but the description adds meaning for three key parameters (origin, hash, install) by explaining their roles. The `edition` parameter is mentioned but not described, slightly reducing completeness.

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 tool switches the active terminal data folder for the session, specifying three modes (origin, hash, install). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_terminals or kill_terminal.

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 explains how to use the parameters but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_terminals to view available terminals. Usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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