herdr_agent_getRetrieve an agent's status, pane location, working directory, terminal title, and session info using its name or pane ID to monitor its environment.
Get one agent's status, pane location, working directory, terminal title, and session info.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | Yes | Agent name (e.g. 'reviewer') or the pane ID hosting the agent (e.g. 'w1:p1'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is naming the returned fields, which is useful but not deep behavioral context (no auth requirements, error behavior, or lookup-miss semantics).
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that lists the returned data with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully enumerates the fields the caller receives. For a simple one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only lookup-failure behavior is unstated.
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 the single 'agent' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the name-or-pane-ID dual form. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one agent) and enumerates the returned facets: status, pane location, working directory, terminal title, session info. The word 'one' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling herdr_agent_list.
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?
Usage is implied by 'one agent' versus the list sibling, but the description never states when to use this instead of herdr_agent_list or herdr_agent_read, nor any preconditions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.