Restart pane

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the destructive kill/respawn action, the optional resume behavior, and the prompt queueing mechanism (including the 'requires resume:true' prerequisite). It could add more about side effects like unsaved state, but it covers the essential behavior well.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, then elaborates on optional behaviors. Every sentence adds value without fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers the primary use case and all optional features (resume, prompt), including a key prerequisite. No output schema exists, but return values are not critical for a state-changing tool. It could mention failure scenarios or prerequisites like pane existence, but the core behavior is sufficiently documented.

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 describes prompt and resume, and the description adds meaning to prompt ('queues a message typed into the resumed claude... speak-first') and clarifies that resume:true is required for prompt. The required paneId parameter is not described in schema or text, but its name and context (target pane) are self-explanatory, so the gap is minor.

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 'Kill and respawn a pane's shell', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like close_pane (which closes) and restart_app (which restarts an app). It also adds the unique capability of resuming a Claude conversation, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 states a concrete use case: 'an agent may target its OWN pane to restart itself.' It also explains when to use the resume and prompt options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it clear this is the tool for restarting a pane's shell rather than sending input or managing panes.

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