Process Output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool reads output and state but does not disclose whether reads are non-destructive, whether reading consumes the buffer, how blocking behavior works, or what the 'clear' parameter does despite its potential mutation of accumulated output.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the core action. Its brevity is appropriate, though it leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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 process-output tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description should explain return shape, blocking behavior, and especially the 'clear' parameter. As written, it is too sparse for an agent to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. 'process_id' is weakly implied by 'process,' but the 'clear' boolean is completely undocumented, leaving an important behavior—whether accumulated output is cleared after reading—entirely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('accumulated stdout/stderr and current state') scoped to a 'long-running process,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_processes or send_input. It is clear but does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'from a long-running process.' There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_processes, send_input, or start_process, nor any mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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