tmux_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (stdout, stderr, exit_code) and that non-zero exit codes are returned not raised. It does not mention the timeout parameter or potential side effects, but given the nature of running arbitrary commands, the description is reasonably transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then usage example, return format, and target parameter. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an AI agent 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 no output schema, the description provides return format. It positions itself among 60+ sibling tools as the universal escape hatch. The only gap is the undocumented timeout parameter, but overall it provides sufficient context for tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that 'args' is a list of subcommand and flags (with example), and describes target values (local, profile, ssh). Timeout is not explained, so not all parameters are covered, but the two key parameters are well-described.

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 'Run an arbitrary tmux command and return its raw result' and labels it as 'universal escape hatch', which unambiguously defines its purpose. It distinguishes itself from the large set of sibling tools (specific tmux commands) by being the generic fallback.

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 explains when to use this tool (anything not covered by siblings) with an example of argument format. It also explains the target parameter (local, profile, ad-hoc ssh). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend alternatives, though it's implied by the sibling list.

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