tmux_last_window

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool switches the active window and returns a fixed response '{"selected": "last"}'. While it doesn't detail error conditions or edge cases, the behavior is straightforward and well-summarized for a simple navigation action.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences plus a return note, with zero redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the action, the second adds parameter context, and the final line specifies the return value. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core action and one parameter adequately. However, the unexplained 'target' parameter and lack of comparison to sibling navigation tools mean it is not fully complete for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It adequately explains the 'session' parameter as mapping to the -t flag. However, the 'target' parameter is completely ignored, leaving its purpose ambiguous. This is a significant gap, as only half the parameters are documented.

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's action: 'Switch to the previously selected window (last-window).' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like tmux_last_pane or tmux_select_window. The reference to 'last-window' further clarifies the tmux command being invoked.

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 effect of the session parameter, providing context for when to use it with a specific session vs the current one. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios from the purpose.

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