pane_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds a useful nuance that recent-unwrapped joins soft wraps, but says nothing about the 'recent' and 'detection' sources, the ansi flag's effect, or errors on a dead pane.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The trailing clause is dense but each phrase contributes a distinct piece of information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, and the read-only profile is covered by annotations. However, with 0% schema coverage, the missing explanation of ansi, lines, and two source modes leaves real gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it explains only two of four enum values for the 'source' parameter and says nothing about 'ansi' or 'lines'. 'pane_id' and the remaining source values are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read terminal output from a pane') that is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like pane_run or pane_close. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from pane_wait_output or agent_read, which read similar data, so it stops 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?

Guidance is given at the parameter level ('recent-unwrapped ... suits logs; visible is the rendered viewport'), which implies when to pick a source. It does not say when to use this tool instead of pane_wait_output or agent_read, nor when not to use it.

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