nvim_cmd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the command mutates buffer state, whether errors abort or return status, whether the session must already be started, or whether the command is executed synchronously. For a tool that can arbitrarily modify an editor session, this is a substantial gap.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — there is no substantive information to front-load.

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 state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain execution semantics, required session state, and error behavior. None of that is present, leaving the agent under-informed before invoking it.

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 `session` and `command` are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format details (e.g., whether `command` should include the leading ':'), so it does not earn above baseline.

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?

"Execute a Vim command" states a verb and resource, but the resource is nearly tautological with the tool name and gives no way to distinguish it from siblings like nvim_keys, nvim_source_lua, or nvim_play, which all arguably "execute" things in the same editor session. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this runs an ex-command (':w'), an arbitrary command string, or something else.

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 indication of when to reach for nvim_cmd versus nvim_keys, nvim_edit, or nvim_source_lua, nor any prerequisites such as an existing session or the expected command syntax (leading colon or not). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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