tmux_run_shell

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains key behavioral traits: stdout is not returned but goes to a buffer, background mode runs without waiting, and the return format is `{output, exit_code}`. It could further detail error handling or side effects, but the major behavioral aspects are well disclosed.

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 concise at 4 sentences, front-loads the purpose, and uses clear structure. It efficiently conveys key info without extra fluff. Minor improvement could be listing parameters more explicitly, but overall it is well-organized.

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 moderate complexity of a command runner tool and the lack of an output schema, the description explains return values and core behavior. However, it omits descriptions for `target_pane` and `target` parameters, and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., tmux session existence) or error conditions. This creates gaps for a fully informed agent.

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 the description must compensate. It mentions only the `background` parameter and its effect. The critical parameters `command`, `target_pane`, and `target` are not described, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema alone. This is insufficient for a 4-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 'Run a shell command from tmux via `run-shell`.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `tmux_run` by explicitly noting that `tmux_run` is preferred for capturing output, making the purpose and differentiation very clear.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs `tmux_run`, advising to prefer `tmux_run` for capturing command output. It also explains the effect of the `background` flag. However, it does not cover usage scenarios for all siblings or provide explicit 'when not to use' beyond this comparison.

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