tmux_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does a decent job: 'whether tmux answers' signals a liveness probe, and 'visible sessions' indicates a read-only snapshot rather than a mutation. It doesn't explicitly promise no side effects, but no parameters and a status framing make that low-risk.

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 one-sentence fragment earns its place; each item — configuration, liveness, sessions — adds distinct information. It is front-loaded with the most important aspect.

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 no-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it states the three areas the output covers, and the presence of an output schema handles return-value details. It would be stronger if it said 'run this before pane tools to confirm tmux is alive,' but that is a usage nicety, not a correctness gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the parameter burden is minimal; the baseline for 0-param tools applies. The description hints that the output is server/tmux state, which is sufficient for a no-input tool.

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 enumerates three concrete outputs — server configuration, tmux liveness, and visible sessions — which clearly identifies a status/health tool. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'reports', so it stops short of a 5, but the resource scope distinguishes it from pane-level siblings.

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 never states when to prefer tmux_status over pane_read, panes_list, or session_kill. The status semantics imply it is a diagnostic entry point, but no explicit conditions or alternatives are given.

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