tmux_find_window

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

The description discloses that the search is non-interactive and implemented via list-windows, and mentions the return format. Annotations already mark it as read-only; the description adds detail on the matching behavior and why it differs from the built-in command. 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 concise, with three focused sentences covering purpose, behavior, and differentiation. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 three parameters and no output schema. The description covers pattern and session adequately and states the return format. However, the 'target' parameter is missing from the description, and there is no guidance on edge cases (e.g., no matches). For a search tool, this is a notable gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains pattern (matching) and session (scoping), but the 'target' parameter is not described at all, leaving its purpose unclear. The description provides partial but incomplete parameter guidance.

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 explicitly states it finds windows matching a pattern, specifies the fields searched (name, title, current command), and clarifies case-insensitive substring matching. It distinguishes from the interactive tmux find-window, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explains that the search can be scoped to a session or the whole server, and contrasts with tmux's interactive version, indicating when this non-interactive alternative is appropriate. While it doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, the context is sufficient.

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