tmux_respawn_pane

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

No annotations provided; description fully covers behavior: default respawn only if exited, kill flag, env version dependency, return value. 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?

Two well-structured paragraphs: first for purpose, second for parameters. No redundant sentences. Could slightly tighten env explanation.

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?

Provides return object and key behaviors. Missing prerequisites like session existence and error handling. For a tool with no output schema and 6 params, it's nearly 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?

Describes command, start_directory, env, and kill with meaningful context. However, 'target' parameter is unexplained, and schema coverage is 0%. Adds value but incomplete.

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 starts with 'Restart the command in a pane (respawn-pane), reusing it in place,' which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from siblings like tmux_respawn_window by focusing on panes without recreating layout.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'retrying a crashed command or supervising a service.' Explains kill=True for force-restart. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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