Split a pane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only repeats what the input schema already documents (horizontal/vertical, optional command) and does not add details such as the effect on the target pane, whether a new pane is created, or any state changes. This is insufficient for a mutation-type tool.

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 front-loads the core action and includes the key options. Every word is purposeful, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple nature of the tool and complete parameter schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It lacks any mention of side effects, prerequisites, or return values, and with no annotations or output schema, a bit more context on what happens when a pane is split would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the schema already documents host, target, command, and orientation. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 verb 'split' with the resource 'pane' and explicitly mentions the two possible orientations (horizontally or vertically) plus the optional command. This is specific and easily distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmux_select_pane or tmux_new_window.

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 the intended use (splitting a pane) but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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