tmux_query

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint) are already present. The description adds context by revealing the underlying tmux command (display-message -p) and the return format ({"value": <expanded string>}). It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral details beyond the structural fields.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. Essential information is front-loaded (purpose, example, underlying command). 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?

For a simple read-only tool, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and output format. However, it does not handle the missing 'target' parameter, error cases, or restrictions (e.g., valid format strings). This is adequate but not complete.

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 'format' and 'target_pane' well, but the 'target' parameter is completely omitted. This is a significant gap for an AI deciding which parameter to use.

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 evaluates a tmux format string using display-message -p, with a concrete example. It distinguishes from siblings like tmux_command (which runs commands) and list tools (which retrieve lists, not evaluate format strings).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tmux_list_panes or tmux_display_message. It provides an example and optional target_pane but lacks guidance on selection among siblings.

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