herdr_pane_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact data fields returned, establishing the tool as a read-only getter. It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but for this simple get operation the return-field list provides adequate transparency.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists return fields without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, the input, and the output fields. It lacks some context about error handling or prerequisites, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema description for pane_id is already complete with a format example (w1:p1), and the description does not add additional parameter-level details. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool gets pane info by ID and lists the specific fields returned (cwd, terminal_id, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like herdr_pane_list (which presumably lists panes) and herdr_pane_split (which modifies panes).

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 usage for retrieving details of a specific pane by its ID, which is evident from the tool name and description. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling set makes the distinction clear.

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