Tail a pane (task)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool creates a task and that the client polls for incremental results, which hints at async behavior. However, it does not disclose the task lifecycle, auto-completion, error behavior, or how polling interacts with the server-side task, leaving significant gaps.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place. It is concise without being under-specified to a tautology, making it an ideal length for the information it conveys.

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 complexity (async task creation, 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too thin to give an agent a full picture. It does not explain what a 'task' means in this environment, how the client polls results, when the task auto-completes, or how it differs from similar tools. The schema covers parameters but not the operational 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% with each parameter described (host, lines, target, intervalMs, iterations). The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. There is no additional nuance or context provided for the parameters.

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 the tool creates a task to poll pane output over time, with a specific verb ('create') and resource ('task to poll pane output'). It implies a long-running/async behavior distinguishing it from one-shot capture tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like tmux_tail_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 phrase 'Client can poll for incremental results' implies the usage scenario (when you need ongoing output over time), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus tmux_tail_pane or other task-based tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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