tmux_split_window

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does explain split orientation default and size semantics, but it does not mention side effects like whether the new pane becomes active, what happens to the current pane, or error conditions. This is a mutation tool, and the description leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 one clear sentence followed by a compact Args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses a simple, scannable format for parameters. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The description adequately covers the key parameters and usage context for a split-pane tool. An output schema exists (though not shown) which likely covers return values. Minor gaps remain regarding side effects and when to prefer splitting over creating a new window, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. Every parameter is clearly explained: target format examples, horizontal meaning and default, size formats (percentage or line/column count), and command as optional. This goes beyond the schema's minimal type definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Split') with a clear resource ('window/pane') and outcome ('create a new pane'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_create_window or tmux_send_keys.

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 (to split an existing pane), and explains key options like horizontal vs vertical and size. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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