Mint a scoped token

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals scope restriction (only named windows/tabs/panes), no escalation, hidden master token, and optional expiry. Omitted details include the behavior when no IDs are provided (empty scope) and the exact return format of the token, which would be valuable.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: defining the token and its scope, showing integration with open_pane, and noting the optional expiry. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant wording.

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 four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview covering purpose, security boundaries, child usage, and expiration. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use the tool, though it could improve by describing the returned token structure and behavior with no scopes specified.

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 compensates by explaining all four parameters: 'named windows/tabs/panes' maps to tabIds, paneIds, and windowIds, while 'Optional ttlMs expires it' covers ttlMs. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, although it stops short of describing defaults or edge-case behaviors.

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 uses a specific verb+resource structure: 'Mint a subtree-scoped control token.' This clearly distinguishes mint_token from sibling tools, which focus on messaging, layout, or workspace management. It also explains the token's role in child orchestration, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states how to use it: hand the token to a child via open_pane env with specific environment variables. It also clarifies that the child should receive the scoped token rather than the master token. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or compare to alternative delegation methods, though no sibling tool provides a similar minting capability.

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