pty_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains token reduction techniques (control character removal, repetition compression, head+tail folding), the incremental read position behavior, and the agent_transcript source and purpose. It does not explicitly state whether reading consumes output, but the incremental position mention implies state tracking. This is substantial contextual information.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and details are concise. Every sentence adds either behavioral context or a specific use case, with no redundant 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?

For a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, reduction modes, and the special agent_transcript mode. It does not detail every parameter, but the schema covers them. The description provides enough context for an agent to select and use the tool effectively.

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 92%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining the agent_transcript parameter's behavior and the default incremental reading (related to 'full'), but it does not systematically elaborate on each parameter beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads session output with token reduction, with a specific default behavior (incremental from last read position). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pty_send and pty_open by focusing on reading output, and the agent_transcript mode is a distinct sub-purpose.

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 gives clear context: use it to read session output with token reduction, and specifically mentions the recovery use-case for truncated long answers via agent_transcript. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient to infer when to use it.

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