tmux_present

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the boolean outcome (tmux present or not), but says nothing about permissions, timeout/error behavior when the host is unreachable, or whether it performs any remote command execution.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true 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?

An output schema exists, so the return value need not be explained. However, for a tool with a required but undocumented parameter and no annotations, the description omits the host-targeting semantics and call preconditions that an agent needs.

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 single required parameter 'alias' has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. Nothing explains that the alias identifies the target host, which is essential for calling the tool correctly.

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 names a specific predicate and resource ('True if tmux is installed on the host'), which is clear enough to distinguish a presence check from sibling action tools like run_command or create_session. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from other diagnostic siblings such as ping or get_status.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this probe versus alternatives like ping, get_host, or get_status, nor any stated preconditions. The agent is left to infer the use case entirely.

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