nvim_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that analysis is AI-driven, hinting at potential latency or non-determinism, but says nothing about cost, permissions, error behavior, or output format. The AI disclosure is real added value, but significant gaps remain.

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 that states the action, the input, the mechanism, and the outcome with no wasted words. Well-sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not clarify what the analysis returns (free text vs structured), whether a recording must already exist, or what 'detailed analysis' versus 'summary' entails.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, pattern-matching semantics, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (analyze) and resource (a Neovim recording), plus the mechanism (AI) and the goal (explain what happened). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling nvim_recordings, which likely just lists recordings. It does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nvim_recordings, nvim_cat, or nvim_play. The purpose implies usage ('when you want to understand a recording') but nothing is stated about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.

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