pmux_tab_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds behavioral context (alive:false is normal, legacy alias) but does not cover side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. It provides some transparency but not comprehensively.

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?

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no waste. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description lacks information about return values. It provides some special notes but is incomplete regarding what the tool outputs, which is important for a status tool.

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 no new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The note about claudeSessionId is not related to input parameters and may be confusing.

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 states 'Get tab runtime status', which is a specific verb and resource. It adds context about web-browser tabs and a legacy alias, distinguishing it from similar tools like pmux_get_tab by focusing on runtime status. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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 mild usage guidance by noting that alive:false is normal for web-browser tabs and suggesting to use browser tools for health checks. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pmux_get_tab or pmux_list_tabs.

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