agy_target_open_terminal

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully describe behavior. It states the action (open Terminal.app, attach to tmux) but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., target must be running), side effects, error conditions, or whether the tool blocks. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

A single, clear sentence that conveys the core action without extraneous words. Highly 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?

Given the single required parameter with no description, the tool is underspecified. The description does not clarify how to obtain the run_id, what the output format is (output schema exists but is not described), or how the tool behaves in edge cases.

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 tool description does not explain the required parameter 'run_id'. The purpose of 'run_id' (e.g., which target's run) and how to find it are completely omitted, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('Open') and resource ('Terminal.app') and adds context ('attached to a target's persistent tmux session') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_status or agy_goal_create.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies it is for interactive terminal access to a target's tmux session, but does not specify when to use this versus other tools like agy_continue or agy_result.

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