tmux_read_cc_pane

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the polling loop, auto-approval by sending '1', and the return of captured content. It also notes the tool can wait and monitor, which is a behavioral trait beyond simple reads. However, it does not mention potential side effects like modifying pane state or error/timeout behavior in detail, though timeout is a parameter.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a bulleted list of behavior in the loop, and an Args section. It is concise yet complete, with every sentence contributing valuable information. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines return content), the description covers the key aspects: parameters, loop behavior, and return condition. It lacks explicit error handling or edge-case details, but the main usage is adequately explained for an AI agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description includes an Args section explaining each parameter meaning, defaults, and example format for target. This fully compensates for the schema gap, adding crucial semantics for effective tool invocation.

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: 'Monitor a tmux pane running Claude Code, auto-waiting and auto-approving.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tmux_read_pane (simple read) and tmux_send_keys (send keys). It also describes the core loop and return condition.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (against a tmux pane running Claude Code) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. It implies this tool is for interactive monitoring/approval scenarios, which is clear enough for an agent but lacks explicit 'use X instead' guidance.

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