pty_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses persistence across restarts, which is key. However, it does not mention potential side effects like session limits, resource usage, or if the operation is idempotent. Basic behavioral transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded with the main action and return value. The second sentence adds essential behavioral and usage context. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately states it returns session_id. It explains persistence and how to use the session with pty_send. The sibling tools list is relevant but doesn't require additional commentary.

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%, and the schema descriptions already explain the 'name' (auto-numbered if omitted) and 'shell' (default bash) parameters clearly. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it opens a local persistent tmux session and returns session_id. It distinguishes itself by explaining that remote operations are done within the terminal via pty_send, not via a separate dedicated tool.

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 implies when to use: to get a persistent terminal for remote operations via pty_send. It contrasts with a dedicated remote operation tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives like pty_list.

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