read-session-output

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read-only operation, and the description does not contradict it. It adds context about targeting background-session output but does not disclose return format, ordering, or potential edge cases.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with a helpful example and no filler. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 a simple read-only tool with fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint, the description is adequate for basic invocation. It could mention prerequisites like an active session or output format, but those are not critical for a tool this straightforward.

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 the schema fully documents 'name', 'lines', and 'profile'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the tail-like example, keeping this at the baseline of 3.

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 the verb 'read' and the resource ('recent output from a background session'), which identifies the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling read-command, so it falls short of a 5.

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 example 'tail -f logs' and the phrase 'background session' imply when this tool should be used, but there is no explicit guidance about alternatives or exclusions. It provides usable context without clear routing among sibling tools.

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