pane_new

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

Annotations provide openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false. Description adds that the pane becomes active and that blank/unscoped behavior occurs when no scoping params are given. No contradiction, but could mention side effects like creating a new pane ID.

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?

Three sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, then scoping options, then alternatives. No unnecessary words; each sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could mention the return value (e.g., pane ID). However, it covers essential behavioral aspects and alternatives. Sibling tools are listed, providing context.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining parameter relationships: 'Pass a saved project (resolves cwd/cmd/url/name), or explicit cwd/cmd/label' and how cwd isolates storage and names the pane. This exceeds the schema's individual descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool opens a new browser pane, makes it active, and optionally navigates to a URL or scopes to a project. It distinguishes from siblings pane_select (switch) and pane_close (close).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use alternatives: 'To switch panes use pane_select; to close use pane_close.' Also explains when to use project vs explicit cwd/cmd/label, and the 'Cockpit only' context.

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