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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic behavior (capturing visible content and returning text) but lacks details on permissions, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the capture is read-only (implied but not stated). It adds some context but is minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded and extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and return value without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it's not entirely incomplete.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond schema hints, or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('capture the visible content') and resource ('of a tmux pane'), distinguishing it from siblings like tmux_list_panes (which lists panes) or tmux_send_keys (which sends input). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios where tmux_capture_pane is preferred over tmux_list_panes (which might provide pane metadata) or other siblings, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that tmux generates a name if none is provided and returns the session name, which adds some context. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens if a session with the same name exists, or error conditions.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly convey essential information: the core action and the return value. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the main action and return value but lacks important details about behavioral traits, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral transparency.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the optional nature of session_name and the auto-generation behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema 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 action ('Create a new tmux session') and resource ('tmux session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tmux_list_sessions or tmux_kill_session, which would require 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tmux_list_sessions for checking existing sessions or tmux_kill_session for removal. It mentions the optional name parameter but offers no context about typical use cases or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive behavior ('kill/terminate') and scope ('all its windows and panes'), which is good. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions (e.g., if session doesn't exist), or side effects (e.g., no confirmation prompt). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key action ('kill/terminate') and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place by specifying the scope of destruction.

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 destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and scope but misses critical context like error handling, confirmation behavior, or return values. For a tool that permanently terminates resources, more completeness is needed to ensure safe use.

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%, with the parameter 'session_name' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('kill/terminate') and the target resource ('a tmux session and all its windows and panes'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes this destructive operation from sibling tools like tmux_list_sessions or tmux_create_session by specifying the irreversible nature of termination.

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 implies usage when a session needs to be terminated, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tmux_list_sessions for checking sessions first) or prerequisites. It lacks warnings about irreversible effects or conditions for safe use.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output details (index, size, active status) but lacks information on permissions needed, error handling (e.g., if session_name is invalid), or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with mutation potential in tmux environments.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes essential details without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized and structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context like error handling or output specifics, which would be needed for full agent understanding. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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%, with the single parameter 'session_name' well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('List all panes') and the resource ('in a tmux session'), specifying what details are included (index, size, active status). It distinguishes from siblings like tmux_list_sessions by focusing on panes rather than sessions, but doesn't explicitly contrast with tmux_capture_pane or tmux_select_pane, which also involve panes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for general pane inspection versus tmux_capture_pane for content retrieval or tmux_select_pane for interaction. The description implies usage by stating the purpose but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output details (name, windows, created time, attached status), which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it lacks information on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and details without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for a listing operation. It specifies what details are returned, though it could benefit from mentioning output format or error handling for higher completeness.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all active tmux sessions'), specifying the exact details returned (name, windows, created time, attached status). It distinguishes from siblings like tmux_create_session (creation) and tmux_kill_session (deletion) by focusing on read-only listing.

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 implies usage for viewing active sessions, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like tmux_list_panes (which lists panes within sessions) or provide exclusions. However, the context is clear for a listing operation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool makes a pane 'active for commands', which implies a state change but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this affects other panes, if it's reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid index), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, clear sentence that's front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., adding a brief example or context) without losing conciseness.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and is a mutation tool (changing pane state), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what happens on success/failure, return values, or error handling. For a tool that modifies tmux session state, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 both parameters (session_name, pane_index) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('select') and resource ('a specific pane in a tmux session'), with the purpose to 'make it active for commands'. It distinguishes from siblings like tmux_list_panes (list) or tmux_send_keys (send input), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'active' means in tmux context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session/pane), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it relates to siblings like tmux_list_panes (which might be needed first to get pane indices). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully reveals a critical behavioral trait: 'Automatically appends Enter unless literal mode is specified.' This explains the default behavior and how to override it, which is essential for correct tool invocation.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds crucial behavioral information. There's zero wasted language and it's effectively front-loaded.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the key behavioral aspect (Enter appending) that isn't captured in the schema. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects or error conditions that might be relevant for a command-sending tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'literal mode' which corresponds to the 'literal' parameter, but this is already covered in the 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 clearly states the specific action ('Send keys/commands') and target resource ('to a tmux session'), distinguishing it from siblings like tmux_list_sessions or tmux_kill_session. It precisely identifies the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 provides clear context about when to use it (for sending input to tmux sessions) and includes a key behavioral detail (appends Enter by default) that informs usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action and outcome but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the split is reversible, how it affects existing panes, or error conditions (e.g., if the session doesn't exist). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, action, and outcome without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('split the current window') and every element 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output format, which would be needed for full completeness in this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('session_name' and 'vertical') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('split the current window') and resource ('in a tmux session'), including the outcome ('to create a new pane') and the orientation options ('horizontally or vertically'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'tmux_create_session' (creates sessions) and 'tmux_select_pane' (selects existing panes).

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 implies usage when needing to create a new pane in a tmux session, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'tmux_create_session' for new sessions or 'tmux_list_panes' to view existing ones). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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