tmux_wait_for_idle

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains the polling behavior, the condition for returning (unchanged for idle_seconds or timeout), and the exact return format {'idle', 'elapsed', 'content'}. 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?

The description is concise (4 lines) and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses a clear structure: purpose, then details. Slightly verbose in listing return fields but overall efficient.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and return value. It lacks details on the 'target' parameter and potential blocking nature, but is sufficient for most use cases.

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 description mentions 'idle_seconds' and 'timeout' with their roles, but does not explain 'target_pane' (required), 'poll_interval', or 'target'. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides partial but insufficient parameter meaning.

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 purpose: 'Wait until a pane's visible content stops changing.' It uses a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('pane's visible content'), distinguishing it from siblings like tmux_capture_pane (snapshot) and tmux_wait_for_text (wait for text).

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 when the tool returns: after 'idle_seconds' of no change or after 'timeout'. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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