Tail a pane buffer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool polls without reissuing commands, implying it is non-intrusive and does not send input to the pane. However, it does not describe the output format, whether the pane is read-only in all cases, or any side effects like resource usage or blocking behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core action and its key nuance ('without reissuing commands'). No redundant or filler words; the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the polling concept but omits what the tool returns (e.g., accumulated pane text, per-iteration output) and does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation. While the schema fully documents parameters, the lack of output and safety details makes the description incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little to the parameters themselves, but it does clarify that the polling is repeated and non-command-based, which gives context to intervalMs and iterations. The parameter names and schema descriptions already cover their meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'poll' and a specific resource 'pane', clearly indicating the tool repeatedly fetches pane output. It distinguishes from simple capture by emphasizing 'multiple times' and 'without reissuing commands,' but does not explicitly name alternative tools like tmux_capture_pane.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that tmux_capture_pane is for one-time capture or that tmux_tail_task might be for task-based tailing. The intended use case is implied but not stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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