pty-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists sessions and implies it's for remote servers, but fails to cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects (e.g., network timeouts), authentication requirements beyond parameters, or error handling. For a tool with multiple parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List persistent sessions') and includes a practical note ('use session_id to reattach'). There's no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the listing function from the reattachment hint for clarity.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings. While it states the purpose clearly, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to use the tool confidently without relying heavily on the schema and trial-and-error, which is inadequate for a multi-parameter remote operation 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?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With a schema description coverage of 67%, the schema documents most parameters well (e.g., 'host', 'key_path'), but some like 'ignore_host_key' and 'user' lack descriptions in the schema. The description doesn't compensate for these gaps or explain parameter interactions, so it meets the baseline for moderate schema coverage without adding extra value.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('persistent sessions on a remote ai-tmux server'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It also mentions a key use case ('use session_id to reattach'), which adds practical context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'list_sessions', which appears to be a similar listing function, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_sessions' or other session-related tools. It hints at a use case for reattachment but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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