pane_process_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds little beyond that, but it does not contradict the annotations and an output schema exists to cover return details.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its brevity leaves gaps that belong to other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw here.

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 tool is simple, read-only, and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, given 0% schema description coverage for the required pane_id and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

There is one required parameter, pane_id, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'for a pane' and does not explain the pane_id format, source, or expected value, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific resource and information type: foreground process and shell information for a pane. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like pane_get or pane_read, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus pane_get, pane_read, pane_list, or other pane-related tools. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'process and shell information', with no alternatives or exclusions named.

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