Capture pane output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, but the description does not disclose potential side effects, limitations (e.g., scrollback buffer limits), or conditions like needing a target pane. Minimal behavioral detail.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words, ideal size.

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 read-only capture tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose but lacks guidance on common use cases, parameter interactions, or return format. It is minimally sufficient but not rich.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema fully documents start, end, host, and target parameters.

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 tool reads a pane's scrollback to observe command results, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like tmux_tail_pane (live tail) and tmux_capture_layout (layout capture).

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 phrase 'to observe command results' implies when to use it (after commands run), but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. With many sibling tools, more explicit guidance would help.

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