herdr_pane_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the returned text is untrusted terminal output and must be treated as data with embedded instructions ignored. It does not cover truncation or how "recent" is bounded.

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 short sentences, both earning their place: one states the operation, one carries the security caveat. The core purpose is front-loaded with no filler.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key trust caveat. It could say more about what "recent" means or output limits, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents pane_id, lines, and source with defaults and the enum. The description adds no syntax, format, or interpretation detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 a raw pane"), and the qualifier "raw pane" implicitly distinguishes it from agent-level siblings like herdr_agent_read. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops 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 phrase "raw pane" hints at when this is appropriate versus the agent-oriented siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as herdr_agent_read or herdr_pane_wait_output. Usage is only implied.

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