List windows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about the target omission behavior (lists all sessions), but it does not explicitly state read-only status, output format, or error behaviors. Since 'list' implies read-only, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the key scope variation with no wasted words.

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?

This is a simple list operation with two optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core behavior and parameter nuance adequately. It could mention the return format or prerequisites (e.g., tmux server running), but the simplicity makes the current description mostly sufficient.

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% for both parameters ('host' and 'target'). The description does not add new semantic information beyond the schema; it only echoes the target behavior. With full schema coverage, a baseline 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 'List windows within a session (or all sessions if no target provided)' clearly states the action (list) and resource (windows), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmux_list_sessions and tmux_list_panes by specifying the scope (session or all sessions).

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 provides clear context: use with a target to list windows in that session, or omit target to list all windows across sessions. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scope makes the usage obvious relative to sibling list tools.

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