Split a shell pane to create a new shell pane beside it, choosing right for wide panes and down for tall panes, and return the new pane under result.pane.
Split a pane to create a new shell pane beside it. Returns the new pane under result.pane. Split wide panes right and tall panes down.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| focus | No | ||
| ratio | No | ||
| pane_id | Yes | ||
| direction | No | right |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the new pane is returned under result.pane, but discloses nothing about permission requirements, layout side-effects, or failure modes for a mutation. Adequate but thin beyond structured data.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. The 'result.pane' sentence is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, costing a bit of tightness, but the structure is efficient.
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?
An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 5-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, missing semantics for cwd, focus, and ratio leave the definition incomplete enough that an agent must guess.
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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies 'direction' semantics (wide→right, tall→down) and 'beside it'; cwd, focus, and ratio are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific verb (split) and resource (a pane) and the concrete outcome (creates a new shell pane beside it). The agent can tell exactly what the operation produces, and no sibling performs this pane-splitting action.
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 sentence 'Split wide panes right and tall panes down' gives directional guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., versus tab_create or creating a new workspace). Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.