herdr_readRead a terminal's current screen plus a set number of history lines as plain text, live or finished. Specify a local or remote terminal to capture its output.
The terminal's screen plus lines of history, as plain text, live or finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lines | No | Lines of history above the screen (default 100). | |
| terminal | Yes | The terminal: `t7`, a name, or `machine/t7`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the return content is plain text including screen and history, and that it works for live or finished terminals, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or whether live reads block or stream.
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 focused sentence with no wasted words, and the key return content is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.
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?
For a low-complexity read tool with full parameter schema coverage, the description adequately explains what is returned. However, it lacks usage context and does not help an agent distinguish this tool from the many sibling terminal tools.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions `lines` of history but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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 identifies the resource and output: the terminal's screen plus `lines` of history, as plain text. It is more specific than the title alone, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as `herdr_get` or `herdr_app_shot`.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that the terminal may be live or finished, but gives no conditions or exclusions for selecting this read tool over sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.