td_pane

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (path, tx, ty, zoom, viewportSize) and the possibility of a null pane. This additional context helps the agent understand what to expect.

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 extremely concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides a usage guideline and return format. No wasteful 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers the purpose, usage, return format, and the output schema is already present. No additional information is needed.

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 tool has one optional parameter (response_format) with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already fully documents it. Thus, the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 it returns the current network-editor pane with fields like path, pan, zoom, and viewport size. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like td_layout or td_viewport.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to learn where the user is looking before editing there.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but the context is sufficient given its read-only nature.

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