pane_pop

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: the re-docking behavior on window close, the non-removal aspect (contrasted with pane_close), and the restriction to Cockpit. This adds value over the annotations which only provide idempotent and open world hints.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: action, side-effects, relationship to sibling, and scope. No critical information 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides for the 'id' parameter.

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 action: 'Detach a pane into its own standalone window,' with a specific purpose (viewing targets side-by-side). It distinguishes from sibling tool pane_close by noting that closing the window re-docks rather than removes.

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 indicates when to use (to view panes side-by-side) and contrasts with pane_close. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives like pane_new.

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