spawn

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 says 'persistent interactive process in a PTY', which hints at lifespan and interactivity, but discloses nothing about permissions, resource limits beyond defaults, what happens on failure, or cleanup behavior for a long-lived process.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first line, then lists args compactly. Formatting is slightly redundant (a docstring-style Args block) but every line earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, as a session-creating tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves lifecycle and error behavior unexplained, making it only adequately complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining all six params (command default, name, cwd, env, rows, cols with defaults). However, it doesn't clarify formats, units beyond 'rows/cols', or why env/name matter, so the compensation is incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb (spawn) and resource (persistent interactive process in a PTY) with example technologies. It distinguishes the create action from siblings like close_session and list_sessions, though it doesn't name a sibling that also creates sessions (if one exists).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that 'spawn' is for creating sessions versus the other session-management siblings, but nothing states prerequisites or the conditions that select this over alternatives.

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