pmux_agent_capture

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details the two recovery paths (with/without requestId), file reading requirements (status line + EOF marker), and the structured result types (complete/blocked/working/inconsistent/partial/missing). The implication that partial/working results block further turns is explicitly stated.

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?

Very concise: first sentence states primary purpose and fallback alternative. Subsequent sentences explain two modes and return semantics. No redundant wording; each sentence adds critical information.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the two main usage scenarios and return types. It could benefit from clarifying the file report format but is sufficient for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral impact of requestId (enabling file recovery) and clarifying that requestId is optional. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters beyond schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as the primary agent orchestration tool for recovering v2.1 agent responses, distinguishing it from pmux_capture_pane which is described as a low-level fallback. The verb 'recover' and resource 'agent response' are specific.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs. pmux_capture_pane ('Use pmux_capture_pane only as a low-level fallback'). Also describes two distinct usage modes based on requestId presence, with clear guidance that partial/working results mean not to send the next turn yet.

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