tmux_show_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is clearly read-only. The description adds the return format. However, it does not disclose what 'scope' options are shown or any limitations. For a read-only tool with annotations, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 brief and to the point, with one sentence and a return format note. No wasted words, though some might argue it is too concise and lacks necessary detail.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about parameter interactions and the full return structure. It only mentions the return format partially but leaves out parameter semantics. The tool is not fully specified for an 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%, and the description only vaguely hints at the 'scope' parameter by saying 'for a scope'. It offers no explanation for the other three parameters (target_entity, global_, target). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 that the tool shows tmux options for a scope, and indicates the return format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_set_option which sets options. However, it could be more specific about what 'scope' means.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tmux_show_environment or tmux_show_hooks. No context on when-not-to-use is given.

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