Open live Claude chat pane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the session becomes live (messages appear on screen), Claude responds automatically, no polling is needed, and no human input is required. It doesn't explicitly state safety side-effects (e.g., whether it affects existing panes or requires tmux running), but the core live-chat behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states the core action; second explains the persistent behavior and its implications. Every sentence earns its place and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool is simple (1 param, no output schema, no nested objects), so the description is largely sufficient. It connects the tool to the tmux agent workflow (live chatting vs polling), which is the key context. A minor gap: it doesn't clarify whether the agent parameter must reference a previously registered agent (via tmux_register_agent) — but given low complexity, this is a minor completeness miss rather than a critical one.

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 coverage is 0% and there's just one parameter (agent) with no description. The description adds context that the agent names the identity under which the Claude session runs, and implies 'From then on, tmux_send to that agent' establishes agent as the key. For a single self-evident parameter (agent = what agent to spawn as), the description gives enough meaning, but it doesn't explicitly state what values are valid (e.g., must be a registered agent).

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 tool spawns an interactive Claude Code session in a tmux pane as a given agent, with specific verb (spawn), resource (Claude Code session in tmux pane), and a clear distinction from siblings — it's the setup tool before using tmux_send, and it explicitly contrasts live typing (no polling) against the alternative. This is specific and distinguishes purpose well.

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 explains the follow-up workflow (tmux_send types directly into the chat afterward) and sets expectations around behavior (no polling, no human input). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for other scenarios, but the interaction with tmux_send is clear enough context for when this is needed.

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