emacs_buffer_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation act and says nothing about side effects such as whether the buffer becomes active, what happens if the name already exists, or whether content is inserted.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity means it sacrifices useful context, though what is present is clear and front-loaded.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It lacks information about required vs optional parameters, behavior on name conflicts, whether the buffer is auto-switched to, and how mode/content are used.

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%, so name, mode, and content are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional param semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the detailed parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new buffer'), clearly indicating the operation. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name but is not vague and is distinguishable from sibling buffer read/write/edit/kill operations.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like emacs_buffer_write, emacs_buffer_edit, or emacs_buffer_switch. The description does not mention prerequisites or situations where one sibling would be preferred.

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