read_pane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does well by disclosing an important edge case: herdr may return an empty string for source=recent with lines on short-scrollback panes, and suggests a retry strategy. This is genuine behavioral context beyond what the schema could convey.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and each subsequent part covers one meaningful detail. There is no filler, and the edge-case note is worth the space.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the definition is complete: it identifies the target, covers all parameters, defines the source variants, and explains failure behavior. The caveat about empty results is especially useful for an agent deciding how to invoke or retry the operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: pane format with example, lines meaning, and the semantics of every source value. This gives an agent everything needed to construct valid arguments.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read a pane's terminal output as plain text.' This clearly distinguishes read_pane from sibling tools like list_panes or get_agent, which serve different purposes.

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 gives clear contextual guidance, including how to identify a pane via list_panes/list_agents, when to use lines, and what each source value means. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X,' but the usage context is strong and no misleading exclusions are present.

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