Read agent output

Does 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 adds the useful detail that output is plain text rather than structured, but says nothing about truncation, pagination, or behavior when the agent has no output.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the practical purpose, which is the right ordering for an agent skimming tool lists.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description disambiguates the return format as plain text, which is the key thing an agent needs to know about the result. For a read-only, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only edge-case output behavior is unaddressed.

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 agent/name pattern, the lines range (1-500, default 60), and each source enum value are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning 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 and resource: 'Read recent terminal output from an agent's pane as plain text.' An agent can distinguish it from metadata-oriented siblings like herdr_agent_get. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast against those siblings, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated.

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?

'Use it to see what an agent did, what it is asking, or why it failed' gives clear scenario-based context for when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. vs herdr_agent_wait for blocking on state), which is what a 5 would require.

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