get_output

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses authorization constraints and return fields. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive or that it has no side effects, but the 'get' verb implies a read operation.

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?

Description is concise with a clear structure: purpose, note, then Args/Returns sections. No redundant information.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and basic parameters. It could include more context like that it retrieves recent output or is used for monitoring, but is largely 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?

Description adds meaning to parameters, specifying default for lines and roles for agent_id and caller_agent_id. However, it inaccurately marks caller_agent_id as required while schema lists it as optional with default null, reducing reliability.

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 gets the tmux output of an agent, using specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like read_screenshot or read_messages.

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 mentions that only Owner and Admin can use, providing authorization guidelines. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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