nvim_screen

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the screen capture is read-only, whether it includes only the visible viewport or scrollback, whether it requires an active session, or what form the returned content takes.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse to the point of omitting useful detail.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain return format and session requirements. It omits what 'screen content' looks like (plain text, ANSI, image) and any prerequisite state, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool it must call correctly.

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 the 'color' and 'session' parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Capture') and resource ('current screen content'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like nvim_edit, nvim_type, or nvim_cmd. It does not explicitly contrast with nvim_cat or nvim_analyze, which may also surface content, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 nvim_cat, nvim_analyze, or nvim_recordings. No preconditions (e.g., a session must be running) or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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