Miyabi MCP Bundle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the pane doesn't exist, what format the output returns (just command name vs full command line), or whether it works with detached panes. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences that directly address the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the primary function and follows with additional context about identifying processes. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured with usage examples or limitations.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks important context about how it behaves, what it returns, and when to use it. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more operational details to be truly complete for agent use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'target' documented as 'Target pane'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful parameter context.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'Identify') and resources ('command currently running in a pane', 'active processes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tmux_list_panes (which lists panes) and tmux_pane_capture (which captures pane content) by focusing specifically on the currently executing command.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active tmux session), limitations (e.g., only works with tmux panes), or when other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., using tmux_pane_capture for full output instead of just the command name).

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