Debug raw tmux output

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It states that the tool returns raw stdout/stderr, which is transparent about output format, but it does not mention that running a tmux command could have side effects or require specific privileges. The description frames it as a debug tool, which mitigates concerns, but it omits any note about command failure behavior or whether the command is executed in a read-only manner.

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, concise sentence that delivers the core information without waste: what it runs, what it returns, and the intended use case. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input, and output semantics. It misses explicit error-handling or exit-code details, but for a debug utility that returns raw stdout/stderr, the description is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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 already has 100% coverage: 'args' is described as arguments to pass to tmux, and 'host' as an optional SSH host alias. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it merely ties the parameters to the raw output goal. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers all 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 runs a tmux command and returns raw stdout/stderr, with a specific purpose of debugging remote formatting/quoting issues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmux_command, which likely present parsed/normalized output, and the specific verb 'Run' plus resource 'tmux command' makes the action unambiguous.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this when debugging remote formatting/quoting issues that might arise from shell quoting or output parsing. It implies that for normal usage one might use tmux_command, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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