herdr_pane_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It hints at a non-destructive read and warns about context flooding with large `lines`, but it doesn't describe the return format, default behavior when `lines` or `source` are omitted, pagination, or any side effects. The caution about context flooding is a minor transparency element, but overall the behavioral surface is underexplained.

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 concise: a single imperative sentence followed by a targeted caution. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and the caution is immediately relevant and useful. No redundant or verbose language.

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 three parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, parameter defaults, and the meaning of non-obvious inputs. It only covers the action and a caution. Missing information includes what the terminal output looks like, the default of `lines` (likely all), and what `source` variations mean in practice. This is insufficient for an agent to make informed calls without additional inference.

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 only 33% (only `source` has a description). The tool description mentions `lines` but only as a caution, not its meaning or default. It does not explain `pane_id` or the semantics of the `source` enum values. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 action ('Read a pane's terminal output') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like herdr_pane_get (likely metadata) and herdr_agent_read, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous but could be slightly more specific about what a 'pane' is.

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 only usage guidance is 'Keep `lines` small to avoid flooding context,' which is a parameter-level caution rather than tool-selection guidance. There's no mention of when to use this tool versus sibling read tools (e.g., herdr_agent_read, herdr_pane_get) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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