Get message history

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. The description clarifies that this is a read operation ('Fetch') and establishes the source-of-truth relationship to the tmux pane, which is useful context about data consistency. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, whether the limit parameter truncates, ordering of results, or performance characteristics.

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, tight sentence that wastes zero words. The parenthetical clarifies the source-of-truth distinction efficiently. 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?

As a read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides reasonable context about what data is returned (structured message history). However, for a 2-param tool it doesn't explain the limit's role in result ordering or pagination, and with no output schema, some return-format expectations would help. Adequate for a simple fetch operation but leaves minor 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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description adds value by framing the data as 'structured message history' and establishing it as the source of truth, which helps the agent understand what the 'agent' parameter refers to. However, the description doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter semantics (ordering, truncation behavior) beyond what the schema constraints imply. With 0% coverage and 2 params, it partially compensates but leaves the limit behavior implicit.

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 ('Fetch'), resource ('an agent's structured message history'), and distinguishes it from the tmux pane as a live view. It identifies this as the source of truth, which differentiates it from sibling tools like tmux_send and tmux_broadcast. However, it doesn't reference sibling read tools specifically, so it's clear but not fully differentiated against the sibling set.

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 ('source of truth' vs 'tmux pane is just a live view'), which helps the agent know this is the canonical way to retrieve history. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus tmux_attach_info or tmux_list_agents, nor does it note any exclusions or alternatives. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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