onda_terminal_spawn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the mechanism (writing `exec` into the PTY), the preservation of argv elements, and the selection rule for workspaceId. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema. It could go further by noting the destructive nature of exec (replacing the current process), but the term 'exec' implies this, and the description is otherwise transparent.

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 two sentences long and directly front-loads the core action and mechanism. Each sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does, the second explains when to use it and how the parameters are disambiguated. No fluff or redundancy.

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 (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: action, mechanism, use case, and parameter selection. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning potential error states or post-spawn behavior, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 adds value by clarifying the optionality of paneId vs workspaceId and the behavior when only workspaceId is given ('the first terminal pane in that workspace is used'). This extra detail about parameter interactions boosts the score above baseline.

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: 'Spawn a binary inside an EXISTING pane by writing `exec bin args...` into its PTY.' It uses a specific verb (spawn) and resource (pane), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on executing a binary vs. sending input or listing terminals. The mention of launching 'claude' further clarifies its intended niche.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to launch claude (or any agent) with a structured prompt inside a workspace pane created via onda_workspace_add_terminal,' providing a clear use case. It also explains the paneId/workspaceId fallback logic. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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