herdr_agent_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the operation is a read (non-destructive), highlights the most reliable source (visible screen), and warns about context flooding. It does not discuss error handling or rate limits, but for a read tool this is acceptable. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining the rationale for defaults and the target lookup step.

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 compact (two sentences) and front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: stating what it does, the recommended source, a usage caution, and a pointer to find targets. No redundancy or wasted words.

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 tool with 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential context: how to identify the target (via herdr_agent_list), what source to use, and how to control output volume. It doesn't explain return format, but that's not required. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances parameter meaning by advising on 'lines' (keep small) and explaining the 'source' default preference for visible screen as most reliable. It guides usage without repeating schema details, adding value beyond the structured field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('read'), resource ('another agent's terminal output'), and purpose ('gather context' for 'contextual handoff'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'another agent's' output and the handoff context, making its role unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'to gather context (contextual handoff)'. It also gives practical usage tips: defaults to the visible screen as the most reliable source, advises keeping 'lines' small to avoid context flooding, and directs users to call 'herdr_agent_list' to find valid targets. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it compared to all siblings, the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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