tmux_resize_pane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal important behavior: the override semantics between width/height and direction/amount, and the meaning of amount in cells. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., minimum pane size, invalid target) or side effects on the pane layout. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, organized with an Args section, and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff or repetition. The structure is easily scannable for an agent.

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, the description covers the core semantics needed to use it correctly. It explains both relative and absolute resizing and parameter precedence. It stops short of discussing edge cases or return values, but those are less critical given the schema and the tool's straightforward operation.

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 provides bare parameter names and types with zero descriptive coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: target format, direction values, amount default/units, and width/height as absolute column/row values with override behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 opens with 'Resize a tmux pane', a specific verb and resource that clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tmux_list_panes or tmux_select_pane. It goes beyond a mere label by detailing the two resize modes (relative and absolute), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use direction+amount for relative resize, or width/height for absolute resize.' It also clarifies the default amount and that width/height override the relative parameters. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the tmux tool family is distinct enough that this guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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