herdr_agent_prompt

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the safety burden is largely covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that it returns immediately or blocks until the agent settles, but omits whether the prompt is queued, what 'settles' means, and how this interacts with the until/timeout_ms parameters.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the return-behavior detail. Every clause carries information.

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 and five parameters, and the description never explains what 'settles' concretely means or how the until state list changes the blocking behavior described by wait=true. Adequate for the core call but leaves a real interaction gap between wait, until, and timeout_ms.

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 baseline is 3. The description usefully ties the wait parameter to the two return behaviors, but says nothing about target, text, until, or timeout_ms beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Submit a prompt to a live agent'), which is clearly distinct from read/list siblings like herdr_agent_get or herdr_agent_read. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related herdr_agent_send_keys or herdr_pane_run, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains the two return modes (wait=false submits and returns; wait=true blocks until the agent settles), which is useful context, but it never says when to choose this tool over herdr_agent_send_keys or herdr_pane_run. Usage is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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