iterm2_list_panes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It describes the informational/read-only nature implicitly by stating it 'lists' and 'shows' content, but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or describe any limitations (e.g., requires iTerm2 running, requires API enabled). The read-only trait is implied rather than disclosed.

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 compact at two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. The second sentence about 'shows which pane you are in' and 'use with other tools' adds practical value without padding. Minor inefficiency: the second sentence's two clauses could be slightly more structured, but overall it's tight.

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 listing tool, the description covers the returned data (IDs, names, directories, jobs) and usage context (IDs consumed by other tools). It doesn't mention prerequisites like API enablement (a sibling tool iterm2_enable_api suggests this may be needed), but the description is largely sufficient for this simple tool type.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively complete (no properties to document). The description adds value by explaining what the returned data contains and how to use the IDs, which addresses informational needs since there's no output schema. Baseline 4 for 0 params 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List all iTerm2 windows, tabs, and panes') and clearly specifies what data is returned: shorthand IDs, names, working directories, and running jobs. It also explicitly notes which pane the user is currently in, adding useful scoping detail.

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 clear context for how to use the tool ('Shows which pane you are in' and 'Use these shorthand IDs with other tools'), implicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools that send input, split panes, or read output. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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