herdr_pane_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description does add real context by naming the execution principal ('as the Herdr user') and warning of arbitrary command execution, but it omits whether the call blocks/returns output, which matters given the sibling herdr_pane_wait_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, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no 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?

For a two-parameter command runner with no output schema and partial annotation coverage, the description leaves a key question unanswered: whether execution is synchronous and returns output, or fire-and-forget (paired with herdr_pane_wait_output). Otherwise it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so both pane_id and command are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about command syntax or pane_id format beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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 concrete verb and resource: 'Run a shell command in a pane,' plus a clarifying parenthetical about how input is submitted. An agent can distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like herdr_pane_read, but it does not explicitly differentiate from herdr_agent_send_keys or herdr_job_start, which also push input/commands.

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 indication of when to use this versus herdr_agent_send_keys, herdr_job_start, or herdr_pane_wait_output. The only guidance is a parenthetical about how text and Enter are bundled, which is behavioral rather than a use-condition.

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