tmux_pane_capture

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions capturing 'scrollback history' which adds useful context about what data is retrieved. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific tmux permissions, if it captures only visible output or full buffer, what format the output returns, or any rate limits. The description is minimal for a tool that interacts with terminal sessions.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the core functionality, the second adds purpose context. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the debugging purpose into the main action statement.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior (capturing scrollback), but leaves significant gaps: no information about return format, error conditions, permission requirements, or practical limitations. Given the complexity of interacting with tmux panes, more context would be helpful.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'scrollback history' which relates to the 'lines' parameter concept but doesn't provide additional syntax or format guidance. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Capture terminal output') and resource ('from a pane'), and mentions the purpose ('for debugging'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_pane_tail (which likely streams output) by focusing on capturing scrollback history. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tmux_pane_search which might also capture output.

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 implies usage context ('for debugging') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an active tmux session) or compare with similar tools like tmux_pane_tail for real-time monitoring versus historical capture.

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