nvim_cat

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the output shape ('AI-readable format with input/output timeline'), but says nothing about side effects, size/truncation limits, or whether pattern matching returns one or many recordings — all relevant for a display tool fed a glob-like pattern.

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 tight sentence with the output-format information front-loaded. No filler.

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?

One required param, no output schema, no annotations — the description covers the essentials (what it displays and in what format) but omits selection semantics for the pattern and any limits on the recording size/timeline it returns.

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% and there is only one parameter, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about how 'pattern' matching works (glob, substring, exact) beyond what the schema field description already states.

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 ('Display') and resource ('asciinema recording') plus the output form ('AI-readable format with input/output timeline'), which disambiguates it from siblings like nvim_recordings (listing) and nvim_play (playback). It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it falls 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus nvim_recordings, nvim_play, or nvim_analyze, all of which touch recordings. There is no mention of prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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