iterm2_current_pane

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read/informational operation but doesn't disclose what specific information the tool returns (dimensions, title, etc.), whether the pane is guaranteed to exist, or what happens if the server isn't in a pane. The lack of an output schema means the description should clarify what 'information' means here.

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?

A single sentence that is perfectly sized for a zero-parameter tool. Every word earns its place, and the specificity about 'where the MCP server is running' is valuable context in compact form.

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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool, this is mostly complete. The main gap is not specifying what 'information' is returned—the description neither lists example output nor references an output schema (which doesn't exist). This leaves the agent guessing about whether it gets dimensions, title, session name, or other attributes. A brief note on return content would improve completeness.

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?

With 0 parameters, the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly explains what the tool refers to ('the current iTerm2 pane where the MCP server is running'), disambiguating which pane is meant. No parameter documentation is needed since there are none.

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 gets information about the current iTerm2 pane where the MCP server is running. The verb 'Get' with the specific resource 'current iTerm2 pane' is clear and specific. It distinguishes from siblings like iterm2_side_pane and iterm2_list_panes since it specifically targets the 'current' pane where the server runs.

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 the use case (querying the current pane's info) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like iterm2_list_panes for enumerating all panes. It relies on sibling names being self-explanatory rather than explicitly stating when to use this tool versus others.

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