Launch a new Neovim session inside tmux for AI-controlled editing. Set session name, terminal size, and optional asciinema recording.
Start a new Neovim session in tmux
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | Terminal width (default: 50, min: 40, max: 100) lower is better | |
| height | No | Terminal height (default: 20, min: 15, max: 50) lower is better | |
| record | No | Record session with asciinema (default: false) | |
| session | No | Session name (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects such as creating a persistent tmux session, required environment/dependencies, whether sessions survive disconnects, or how to terminate them via nvim_stop.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriately sized for a one-action tool. It is terse, but the missing behavioral context is captured in separate dimensions rather than being verbosity here.
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 session-creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits lifecycle or return behavior. The schema fully documents all optional parameters, so basic invocation is possible, but the definition is only adequate rather than complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, and all four parameters (width, height, record, session) have detailed schema descriptions with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 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?
States a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('new Neovim session in tmux'), so an agent can tell this creates a session rather than editing, sending keys, or stopping. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like nvim_play or nvim_recordings, but the start-session scope is clear.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided. It does not say to use this before nvim_edit/nvim_cmd, whether tmux must be installed, or how it relates to nvim_stop, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.