open_terminal_tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the important side effect: this creates a *visible* tab, and an existing session should be reused rather than duplicated. It does not address what happens with duplicate names, whether the call blocks until the tab is ready, or how the tab is cleaned up (left to the sibling close_session).

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the hard constraint ('ONLY use for long-running commands'), then alternatives. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 low-complexity, three-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and alternatives well. The only gap is what the agent gets back (session name/id or a handle to pass to send_to_session), which would help close the loop with the reuse sibling.

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%, so all three parameters (name, terminal, working_directory) are already documented in the input schema. The description only implies the 'name' parameter via 'named terminal tab' and adds no format, uniqueness, or default-terminal detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Open a new named terminal tab') and immediately differentiates this tool from the many execute_* siblings by scoping it to long-running, visible-tab work. An agent can distinguish it from execute_command and send_to_session without consulting any schema.

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?

It states explicit when-to-use criteria (builds, installs, servers, cloning repos), explicit when-not (quick commands), and names two concrete alternatives (execute_command, execute_with_auto_retrieve) plus a reuse path (send_to_session). This is about as complete as routing guidance gets.

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