interactive_bash_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the session is tmux-based, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not mention side effects, persistence, cleanup, or how the session is identified or referenced afterward. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutating operation.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains zero filler. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key implementation detail (tmux-based) without wasting words.

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 create operation, the description is moderately complete, but it does not explain what happens after creation (e.g., how to connect via sibling tools, whether a session ID is returned, or how the tmux session is named). With no output schema, some of this context falls on the description, which omits it. Sibling tools provide context but the description itself lacks these details.

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 100%, with all three parameters (shell, working_dir, session_name) described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter documentation fully.

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 '대화형 bash 세션 생성 (tmux 기반)' clearly states a specific action (create) on a specific resource (interactive bash session) and notes the tmux basis. It distinguishes this tool from its siblings (interactive_bash_send, interactive_bash_read, interactive_bash_list, interactive_bash_kill) by explicitly indicating creation rather than interaction or management.

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?

Usage context is implied: one would use this to create a session before using send/read/kill. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites. The sibling tool names suggest a lifecycle, but the description itself provides no direct guidance.

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