read_terminal_buffer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that hard-wrapped rows are joined, trailing blank viewport padding is trimmed, and the 'lines' parameter has default 100 and max 20000. It lacks statements about auth or rate limits, but as a read operation, the behavior is well-covered.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, one paragraph for processing details. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, processing, parameter meaning, and bounds. No gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains that 'lines' is the number of trailing scrollback lines to capture, with default 100 and max 20000. This compensates for the schema's minimal information.

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 uses a specific verb 'capture' and resource 'trailing scrollback from the active tmux pane', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like execute_command and send_control_signal. It also details processing steps (joining rows, trimming padding) for precision.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the context of siblings (execute_command, send_control_signal) makes usage implied. No explicit when-not or alternatives are provided.

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