tmux_step

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the sequence (send, wait, capture), the timing behavior ('wait briefly'), and the output ('pane snapshot'), plus the roundtrip efficiency. It does not cover error behavior or side effects beyond sending keys, but for the core behavior it is quite transparent.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action ('Send keys') and efficiently packages the three-step process and use case without any wasted 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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: it is a combined send-and-capture step for TUI interaction, with a roundtrip purpose. The rich schema covers parameter details, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It could mention prerequisites or error scenarios, but the core functionality is adequately conveyed.

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 91%, so the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond implying 'keys' and 'delay_ms', but it does not need to repeat schema details. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: send keys, wait for redraw, and return a pane snapshot. This identifies it as a composite operation and distinguishes it from siblings like tmux_send_keys or tmux_capture_pane, which handle only one part.

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 phrase 'one roundtrip for TUIs' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to send input and immediately capture the redrawn pane, especially for terminal UI interactions. It implies the advantage over separate send and capture calls but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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