herdr_agent_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the returned text is untrusted terminal output and must be treated as data. This is a genuinely valuable behavioral disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the security caveat. No filler, every sentence 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?

With no output schema the description appropriately notes the nature of the returned text, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete, missing only sibling differentiation and default-source behavior.

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 lines, source and target are all documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, which is the baseline case.

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 output from an agent's pane'), which is clear enough for an agent to understand. It does not, however, contrast itself with the close sibling herdr_pane_read or explain whether 'recent' is bounded.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus herdr_pane_read, herdr_agent_get, or herdr_agent_wait, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit usage cue is the security caveat about untrusted output.

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