herdr_pane_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description discloses the output fields. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects, or mention any access/privacy considerations. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the action and optional filter, the second specifies the returned fields. No unnecessary words, and the structure is well-organized for quick scanning.

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 low-complexity list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, scope, and return contents. It omits details like ordering or pagination, but these are not critical for a fundamental list operation, so the description meets the needs.

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 covers the only parameter (workspace_id) with a clear description, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description repeats this information without adding new meaning or format details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score 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 'List all panes' with an optional workspace filter, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling pane_get by indicating this returns all panes, not a single one. Including the fields (pane_id, cwd, agent_status) further clarifies 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 conveys a clear use case: when you need an overview of panes, optionally scoped to a workspace. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but among sibling tools like pane_get or pane_split, the listing purpose is self-evident, so context is clear.

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