onda_workspace_add_terminal

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 so richly. It discloses the PTY readiness wait, the exact return fields, the default react-mosaic split behavior, the 'splitPane' routing for deterministic placement, and the effect of waitForReady=false. This exceeds what a bare 'add terminal' description would provide and gives the agent accurate expectations.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose with return fields, a placement paragraph that explains default and deterministic behavior, and an actionable prerequisite callout. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, return value, parameter nuances, and prerequisite workflow. It is complete for a tool of this complexity and provides clear next steps for placement decisions.

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?

Although the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds substantial extra meaning. It clarifies the practical effect of direction (top/bottom vs left/right pairs), how relativeToPaneId defaults to the active pane, and what waitForReady implies for return timing. This goes well beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Add a new terminal pane to a workspace' and states the wait-for-ready behavior. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly describing the workspace-level pane creation and mentioning deterministic placement via splitPane, which distinguishes it from generic terminal spawn or pane split tools.

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 gives clear context: it explains when to use the default append behavior versus deterministic placement, and explicitly instructs calling onda_workspace_layout first when placement matters. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as onda_terminal_spawn or when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for most selection scenarios.

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