tmux_split_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention side effects like resizing the original pane, that the target defaults to the current pane, or that this operation modifies the tmux session. These are important behavioral traits for the agent to anticipate.

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 a single, straightforward sentence that earns its place without wasted words or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easily parsed, providing the core purpose immediately.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the relationship between splitting a pane and the resulting layout, nor does it provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior in a tmux workflow. The description is minimally acceptable but leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 detailed descriptions for all four parameters (target, command, percent, horizontal), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, but it does not need to because the schema already documents each parameter adequately. Hence, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Split a pane to create a new pane' clearly identifies the action (split) and the resource (pane), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like tmux_new_window (which creates a new window) or tmux_select_pane. The verb is specific and the outcome (a new pane) is explicit.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as tmux_new_window for creating new windows or tmux_select_pane for navigating. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and one-line description.

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