tmux_join_pane

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

With no annotations, the description explains key behaviors: default split direction, vertical stacking, percentage sizing, and focus behavior via select. It does not discuss reversibility, side effects, or requirements, but covers the main behavioral traits.

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?

Four sentences with front-loaded purpose and no redundant words. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 and multiple sibling tools, the description covers the main purpose and key options. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but the essential information is present.

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 compensates by explaining src, dst, vertical, percentage, and select. It omits explanation for the 'target' parameter, but overall adds meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 'join' and the resources 'src' pane into 'dst' window, and distinguishes it as the inverse of break-pane, which differentiates it from sibling tools like tmux_break_pane.

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 usage as the inverse of break-pane, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It covers behavior options but lacks clear guidance on selection criteria.

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