tmux_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a read-only listing action, specifies the output scope (all host tmux sessions), and names the resulting fields. It stops short of edge cases such as what happens when tmux is not running, but the main behavioral surface is clear.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and output details, then adds a concrete use case.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it states what is being listed, what the result contains, and which in-environment sessions it helps confirm. An agent has enough information to select and invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema already covers everything. There is nothing for the description to add, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '列出宿主机所有 tmux 会话' and enumerates the returned fields (名称/窗口数/创建时间). It also frames the main use case, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tmux_capture and tmux_send.

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?

It explicitly says the tool is for confirming whether specific tmux sessions like sim_bridge, ego-planner, agent_run, and fake_prompt exist, giving clear context on when to use it. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or compare with alternatives, so it is not a full when/when-not guide.

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