process_screen

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the snapshot is pure but that passing cols/rows resizes the live PTY, and that the screen stays queryable until process_cleanup. It also explains buffer semantics. However, it does not describe the return value format, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs a lot of behavioral detail into a compact paragraph. The buffer sentence is somewhat terse and could be clearer, and the overall structure is a single dense block rather than separated sections, but it remains efficient.

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 description covers when to use the tool, side effects, lifecycle, and parameter effects, which is strong for a tool with no output schema. The main gaps are the missing buffer parameter in the schema and the lack of an explicit return format, keeping it from being fully 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 descriptions are minimal, but the description adds meaningful context: cols/rows resize the live PTY first, and buffer is described as 'primary' or 'alternate'. However, the buffer parameter is not actually present in the input schema, which is a significant mismatch that prevents a perfect score.

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 'Snapshot the live screen of a PTY process' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from the sibling tool process_read by explicitly mentioning the TUI use case, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 'use this tool instead of process_read' for full-screen TUIs, providing a clear when-to-use instruction and naming the alternative. The note about the screen remaining queryable after exit also clarifies its lifecycle.

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