tmux_display_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool displays on the tmux screen, expands #{...} format variables, and returns a simple JSON. It is a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is clear from the description. The return format is specified. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler. The most important information (purpose, distinction from sibling) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers the core behavior (display message, format expansion, return value) but does not detail all parameters or edge cases. For a simple display tool with no output schema, it is adequate but leaves room for improvement in parameter documentation.

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%, so description must compensate. It explains that 'message' is the content displayed and that format variables are expanded against 'target_pane' context if given. However, 'target_client', 'target', and the precise meaning of 'target_pane' are not explained. Only 2 out of 4 parameters receive any clarification, which is insufficient.

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 shows a message on a client's status line, using specific verbs ('Show') and resource ('message on status line'). It distinguishes itself from 'tmux_query' by explaining the difference in output location (on-screen vs. printed to stdout). This is precise and leaves no ambiguity.

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 explicitly contrasts with 'tmux_query', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool (on-screen display) versus the sibling (stdout printing). It mentions format variable expansion against target_pane context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for similar tasks.

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