herdr_agent_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads output and gives a concrete scenario, but does not explain behavior like default line count, whether it waits, or how 'recent' is defined, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then purpose, then an example. No wasted words.

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 schema is rich with descriptions, and the description covers the tool's main use cases. It could mention more about the source options or return structure, but for a read tool with no output schema, it is sufficient for basic use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by suggesting specific parameter values ('~400 lines', 'recent') for warm-up, which gives practical meaning beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Read recent output from an agent's terminal') and explains its purpose (checking for TASK_COMPLETE, blocked questions, or any output). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like herdr_pane_wait_for_output by focusing on reading output directly.

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?

It explicitly identifies when to use the tool—to check for TASK_COMPLETE, blocked questions, or agent output—and provides a concrete warm-up example with ~400 lines from 'recent'. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools explicitly, so it lacks exclusions.

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