screen

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 that the tool is an interactive PTY session with a structured lifecycle (open, send, close) and a framing step. However, it omits details on what 'frame' means, error behavior, or authentication requirements, so it is not fully transparent.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that pack in the operation set, usage pattern, and sibling exclusion without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 an interactive PTY tool with six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides a useful high-level workflow and the key constraint about serial hardware, but lacks details on parameter semantics, expected output, and edge cases. It is moderately complete but leaves significant 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only explains 'ep' and 'op' (the latter with its enum values). It mentions 'actions' in the loop but does not clarify the structure of 'actions', and entirely omits 'id', 'shot', and 'wait'. Thus, it adds some meaning but does not compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 specifies the tool's resource ('Interactive PTY screen'), the host parameter 'ep=', and the supported operations 'open|send|close|list'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'console' tool by explicitly stating it is not for serial hardware.

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 an explicit usage loop ('open → frame → send(actions) → frame → close') and a clear exclusion/alternative ('Not for serial hardware — use the console tool'). This gives strong guidance on when to use this tool versus the 'console' sibling.

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