tmux_save_buffer

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

The description reveals important behaviors: path resolution on the target host (critical for SSH), default buffer selection (most recent), and append mode. It also specifies the return format. While annotations are absent, these disclosures add substantial value.

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 exceptionally concise: three short sentences covering purpose, parameters, and return value. No superfluous text; every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description adequately explains core functionality and key behavioral nuances (target resolution). However, it omits the 'target' parameter and lacks usage differentiation from siblings, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains name (default, selection), append (mode), and path (required, target resolution). However, the 'target' parameter is completely undocumented, leaving a gap for 1 of 4 parameters.

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 writes a paste buffer to a file using tmux's save-buffer command. It identifies the resource (paste buffer) and action (save to file), which is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like tmux_load_buffer or tmux_paste_buffer, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tmux_set_buffer or tmux_load_buffer. The description focuses solely on what the tool does without providing context or exclusions.

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