tmux_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool auto-prepends sender info, reply target, and correlation ID, and implements loop prevention. However, it does not mention potential errors, message length limits, or whether the message is persisted.

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 sentences, each adding essential information: action/details, loop prevention, prerequisite. No redundant or extraneous text. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 lacks an output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator, error message). For a messaging tool, this is a notable omission that could affect an agent's decision to use it.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (coverage 100%). The tool description adds context about auto-prepended info, but does not further clarify parameter constraints or format beyond the schema. The schema descriptions for 'text' and 'target' are basic, so the description adds marginal value.

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 the action: 'Send a message to another agent's pane'. It specifies key features (auto-prepended sender info, reply target, correlation ID) and includes restrictions (cannot message own pane). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmux_read, tmux_list, etc., which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite ('Must tmux_read first') and a constraint ('Cannot message your own pane'). This provides clear guidance on when and how to use the tool, though it does not elaborate on alternative tools for messaging since none exist among siblings.

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