tmux_if_shell

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains conditional execution, format mode, and background flag. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but overall provides good transparency for a conditional command.

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 concise paragraphs with a clear summary line followed by parameter details. No unnecessary words. Well-structured and easy 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and conditional logic, the description covers the core behavior and most parameters. Missing explanation of target parameter, but otherwise sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description must add meaning. It explains condition, if_command, else_command, background, is_format. However, the target parameter is not mentioned, leaving it semantically incomplete for a 6-parameter tool.

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 runs a tmux command conditionally based on a shell command or format condition. It differentiates itself from other tmux tools by focusing on conditional execution.

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 the condition behavior and two modes (shell vs format). It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like tmux_command, but the conditional nature is implied. Clear context for typical usage.

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