screen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a row-of-text representation with cursor position, and that reset clears the screen model after garbage or resize. This gives an agent a good sense of side effects and state, though it does not discuss connection-level effects or failure modes.

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 compact and well-structured: main purpose first, then use-case context, then parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no repetition of schema fields.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details are already covered. The description supplies the necessary behavioral context, usage pattern, and parameter semantics, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: reset is explained as clearing the screen model after garbage or resize, and connection is explained as an open connection name with a default. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw boolean/string schema.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('current terminal screen of a vt100/xterm connection'), and adds concrete detail about what is displayed (rows of text, cursor position). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_available or status by framing it as the way to read full-screen interfaces.

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 explicitly says this is how to read full-screen interfaces and gives a concrete usage pattern: press keys with send_keys, then look at the screen again. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough to know when to use screen versus simpler text-reading tools.

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