Send to terminal

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the default carriage return behavior and the enter=false option for raw keys, which are important side effects. It doesn't cover error cases or prerequisites beyond 'open buffer', but this is adequate for a simple send operation.

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 well-structured sentences: first states purpose, second explains the key flag behavior. No redundant text or filler, making it 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, the necessary context (open terminal buffer, bufnr source), and the default behavior. It's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly given the schema; no output schema is needed. Minor gaps like error handling don't undermine completeness for this simple 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 tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that 'enter=false' sends raw keys (e.g., control characters), which isn't in the schema's enter parameter description. This enhancement justifies a 4.

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 the tool sends input to an open terminal buffer, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nvim_open_terminal (creates) and nvim_terminal_read (reads). The mention of 'open terminal buffer' clarifies it targets existing terminals.

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 implies usage context by referring to 'open terminal buffer' and specifying bufnr from nvim_open_terminal/list, indicating a prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for sending input to existing terminals.

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