Register agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the side effect of creating a live tmux pane, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether re-registering an existing agent is idempotent, what happens if the pane already exists, whether registration has side effects beyond pane creation, or any error conditions. For a tool that mutates state, this is a meaningful gap.

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 compact—two sentences—and front-loads the primary purpose before the usage caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no wasted language. Minor deduction only because it could slightly clarify the parameter-relationship.

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 tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description addresses the core purpose and usage context. However, without annotations, it doesn't fully disclose behavioral subtlety (idempotency, existing-pane behavior), which is relevant for an agent deciding whether to call it. It's adequate but leaves behavioral edge cases unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'name' parameter. The description mentions 'agent' in the context of registration and implies the name identifies the agent, but it doesn't explicitly state that the 'name' parameter is the agent identifier. However, with only one parameter whose purpose is fairly self-evident from the tool name and required flag, the marginal value the description could add is limited.

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 states 'Register an agent and ensure its live tmux pane exists' which clearly identifies the verb (register) and resource (agent) with a specific outcome (pane creation). However, it doesn't fully differentiate it from siblings like tmux_send or tmux_broadcast; the differentiation is only implied via the note that they self-provision. It's reasonably clear but not explicitly distinguishing.

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 when to use the tool: 'Not required before send/broadcast — they self-provision — but useful to pre-create a pane before anyone messages that agent.' This gives clear contextual guidance on when it's needed vs. unnecessary, and implicitly contrasts with the send/broadcast siblings. This exceeds basic usage guidance.

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