kitty_dump_scrollback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-phase behavior and pagination mechanism but does not mention side effects like temp file creation, cleanup, or error handling. The behavioral traits described are accurate but incomplete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence adds essential information. No redundant or trivial content.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description effectively explains the core workflow and pagination. It covers the primary use case but could mention the return format (lines of text) and the temp file path pattern for clarity. Overall, it is mostly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the pagination pattern involving file_path, which is not detailed in the schema. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 it dumps a window's full scrollback to a temp file and reads with pagination, solving the problem of large buffers. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kitty_get_text or kitty_get_tab_text, which may also retrieve text from a window.

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 provides a usage pattern: first call dumps and returns a page, follow-up calls with file_path paginate. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, e.g., for small scrollback consider using another tool. No alternatives are mentioned.

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