tmux_read_pane

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

Without annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly says 'Read/capture', confirming a read-only operation, and adds behavioral details about line_count (whole visible pane if omitted) and start_line (negative for history). This provides useful context beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured with an Args list. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition—and the parameter explanations are concise yet informative.

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 that an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers parameter semantics and key behavioral details, making it largely complete for a read tool. It falls short only in not distinguishing from the sibling read tool tmux_read_cc_pane.

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 descriptions for the parameters, so the description fully compensates. It explains target with an example, line_count with default behavior, and start_line with a negative-value explanation, making each parameter's semantics clear.

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 states 'Read/capture content from a tmux pane' with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating its function. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tmux_read_cc_pane, but the name and generic wording make the primary purpose clear.

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 like tmux_read_cc_pane or tmux_send_keys. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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