terminal_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that output is limited to the last N lines and that ANSI codes are stripped, which is behavior beyond what the schema states. It does not mention side effects, but as a read operation this is an acceptable level of transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the two most decision-relevant details (line limit and ANSI stripping). Every word contributes, with no repetition or filler.

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 low-complexity tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned ('last N lines', 'ANSI codes stripped'). It does not specify the exact return structure (e.g., array of strings vs joined string) or error behavior for a missing terminal, but these are minor gaps for an agent invoking this tool correctly.

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 100%, so both parameters (name, lines) are already well documented. The description adds some context about how the 'lines' parameter relates to output but does not meaningfully go beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when structured data handles parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), identifies the resource ('current visible output from a terminal session'), and adds precise detail ('last N lines', 'ANSI codes stripped'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like terminal_send (write) or terminal_snapshot (full state capture).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as terminal_snapshot or terminal_wait. The description implicitly suggests it is for reading output, but it does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a different sibling.

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