pane_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states that scrollback is included and that raw=true preserves ANSI escape codes, which are meaningful behavioral details beyond the schema. The verb "Read" also implies a non-mutating operation, though it does not explicitly guarantee zero side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core operation first and then adding only essential identifier and flag semantics. Every sentence contributes information, with no filler or 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 that an output schema is present, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the identifier resolution rules, scrollback behavior, and raw-mode behavior. A potential gap is failure or ambiguity behavior when a partial title matches multiple panes, but this is minor for a read tool of this simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters itself. It does: pane formats are fully enumerated (pane id, target, partial case-insensitive title), raw is explained via ANSI behavior, and lines is defined as the number of trailing lines to read. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Read the last `lines` lines of a pane (scrollback included)." This clearly distinguishes pane_read from mutation siblings like pane_send and pane_key, and from listing tools like panes_list, by stating exactly what operation it performs.

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 explains how to specify a pane and the raw flag, but it never tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not reference any sibling tool or provide exclusion criteria, so the agent is left to infer tool-selection context.

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