pane_kill

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does state the destructive nature ('Kill') and the exact target ('one pane'). It also discloses a key guardrail: disabled when TMUX_AGENTS_ALLOW_KILL=false. It could add reversibility or side-effect details, but for a one-line destructive tool this is meaningful 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The first sentence states the action and target, and the second provides a crucial operational condition. Every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key environmental guard. However, it does not tell the agent how to identify the pane value, what happens when the tool is disabled, or how to recover the pane identifier (e.g., via panes_list). The definition is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 input schema only defines a required string parameter named 'pane' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'one pane (one agent)' but does not explain what format the pane identifier should take, where to obtain it, or whether it is an ID, name, or index. This is a clear gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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, 'Kill', and a specific resource, 'one pane (one agent)', which clearly states what the tool does. It also differentiates itself from the sibling session_kill by emphasizing singular scope. The title and behavior align, leaving no ambiguity about the operation's target.

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 usage for terminating a single pane or agent, which contrasts with session_kill for a whole session, but it never explicitly says 'use this when you need to stop one agent' or 'use session_kill for all panes'. The conditional environment variable note gives operational context, but alternative-selection guidance is left to inference.

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