Run a batch of commands in one call

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: default && fail-fast semantics, fallback to ; with failFast=false, automatic paged output capture, and prompt cleaning before writes. This goes beyond a mere 'execute commands' statement, though it omits details like error handling or return format.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and each clause adds operational detail. 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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema; the description gives a strong overview and mentions output capture, but leaves nuances (joinWith=newline, default captureLines) to the schema. It is reasonably complete given schema coverage.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining default join behavior and prompt cleaning, which relates to failFast and cleanPrompt, but does not significantly enhance understanding of host/target/captureLines beyond schema.

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 executes multiple shell commands sequentially in one tmux pane and captures output, using specific verbs and scope. It distinguishes from single-command siblings like tmux_send_keys by emphasizing batch execution and output 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 description implies usage for running sequential commands with output capture, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like tmux_multi_run or tmux_send_keys, nor state when not to use. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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