herdr_agent_prompt

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: the tool may block until the agent reaches a status. However, it does not mention potential errors, timeouts, side effects, or return values. The write nature is evident from 'Send a prompt', but disclosure of consequences is limited.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and follows with the optional blocking behavior. Every word earns its place; it is concise without being under-specified.

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 the core functionality (send prompt, optionally wait for statuses) and the parameter schema is thorough. Minor gaps exist around error handling and return value, but for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (target, text, wait) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond repeating the wait behavior. Thus, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 primary action: 'Send a prompt to an agent running in a pane.' This distinguishes it from siblings like herdr_agent_send_keys (sends keys) and herdr_pane_send_input (sends generic input) by focusing on 'prompt' to an 'agent'. The optional blocking on statuses adds specific scope.

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 implies the use case: when you need to send a textual prompt to an agent and optionally wait for a status. It provides clear context (agent in a pane, statuses to wait for) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer when to prefer this over related tools.

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