terminal_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Snapshot' implies a non-destructive read, but the text never explicitly states that it does not modify terminal state or consume output. It also doesn't mention potential performance cost of scanning all sessions.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action, scope, content, and use case are all delivered up front without 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately covers what it does and what information it returns. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting the output format or confirming that no state changes occur, but these are minor gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the schema confirms there is nothing to configure.

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 ('take a snapshot') naming a clear resource ('all terminals') and lists the captured contents (names, commands, last few lines of output). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like terminal_read (single terminal) and terminal_list (likely just names/IDs).

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 phrase 'useful for getting an overview of what's happening across all sessions' gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to specific alternatives such as terminal_read for inspecting one terminal in detail.

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