Get attach command

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 does state this is a read-only informational tool ('get the shell command...a human can run'), which implies it doesn't mutate tmux state. However, it doesn't disclose edge cases like what happens if the agent has no pane yet, whether the command needs to be run in a specific environment, or format of the returned command. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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, focused sentence that conveys the complete purpose with no wasted words. Every element earns its place - it identifies the action, the resource, the audience, and the mechanism (shell command) 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?

For a simple 1-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this is reasonably complete. However, given no annotations and zero schema description coverage, it could benefit from a bit more context - e.g., pointing to tmux_list_agents for finding valid agent IDs, or noting that this is a read-only operation distinct from execution tools. The core purpose is clear but supporting details are thin.

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 has 1 parameter (agent) with 0% description coverage, meaning the description must explain the parameter's meaning. The description implies 'one agent's live pane' maps to the agent parameter, but it doesn't explicitly state that the agent value must match an already-registered agent name or explain how to discover valid values. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (get) and resource (the shell command a human runs to attach a terminal to one agent's live pane). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like tmux_send and tmux_open_claude by making clear this only produces an attach command rather than executing an action. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 context (when you need to tell a human how to attach to an agent's pane) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, relying on the reader to infer that this is for retrieval rather than action.

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