remote_pane_split

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the primary behavioral outcome ('creates a new pane within the session'), which is useful. Yet it does not explain side effects such as whether the source pane remains active or how layout changes, nor does it discuss any prerequisites or reversibility. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a helpful usage hint. 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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description omits what the function returns and does not clarify the meaning of 'horizontal' vs 'vertical' (which can be ambiguous in tmux-style splits). Parameter coverage is perfect, and the usage context is provided, but those missing aspects prevent a higher score.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Split'), the resource ('current pane'), and the precise scope ('horizontally or vertically'). It also distinguishes from sibling pane tools by focusing on the split operation, which is unique among the listed sibling 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 explicitly provides a usage context ('Use for running multiple commands in parallel or monitoring'), which helps the agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full alternatives guidance.

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