onda_tab_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavior: 'The process replaces the shell in the tab's PTY: argv is passed to execve() as-is, so embedded newlines, quotes, and dollar signs are preserved verbatim.' This goes beyond the schema by explaining the mechanics and guarantees of passing arguments.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence adds essential behavioral detail without redundancy. Every sentence serves a distinct role: one for purpose/usage, one for behavior.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how arguments are handled. It does not mention post-spawn behavior (e.g., interaction, process exit), but that is generally covered by sibling tools. The description is sufficient for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters; it reiterates the verbatim argument behavior that the schema's args description already mentions. No additional parameter-specific context is provided.

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 action: 'Open a new tab and spawn a process directly with exact argv (bypasses shell parsing).' It uses a specific verb (spawn) and resource (process in new tab), and explicitly contrasts with siblings by highlighting the bypass of shell parsing and exact argv handling.

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 an explicit use case: 'Use this when you need to pass multi-line strings or special characters as a single argument — e.g. launching `claude` with a structured preamble.' It gives clear context for when to choose this tool, though it does not name alternative tools or specify 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.