telnet_proxy_read

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

No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose behavioral traits. Does reading clear the buffer? Is it non-destructive? What happens if buffer is empty? No error conditions mentioned. The description does not add value beyond stating the 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?

Single, short sentence front-loading the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no fluff. Highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description lacks completeness. It does not specify return format, side effects, or dependencies on other tools like telnet_proxy_start. An AI agent lacks sufficient context to invoke this correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'lines' parameter having a description ('Lines (default 100)'). The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as there is no extra value but also no contradiction.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'read' and resource 'raw data from telnet proxy buffer'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like telnet_proxy_start or telnet_proxy_status by specifying buffer reading. However, 'raw data' is slightly ambiguous (e.g., lines of text, binary) but sufficient for basic understanding.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, when to use telnet_proxy_read vs telnet_proxy_status or rtt_read is not mentioned. No context on prerequisites (e.g., telnet proxy must be started) or limitations.

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