tmux_select_window

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only restates the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., changing active window in tmux), error behavior, or required permissions. It adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's purpose.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a single action sentence followed by a clearly labeled Args section. Every word earns its place, and the format is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, and it doesn't clarify whether the target must already exist or how errors are handled. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 description for the 'target' parameter (coverage 0%), but the description compensates by explaining 'Tmux target (e.g. "session:window")', providing a concrete format example that adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Navigate/switch to a specific tmux window', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_select_pane and tmux_create_window by focusing on selecting an existing window.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be preferable, providing only the core action and target format.

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