nvim_stop

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. It says 'Stop' but does not disclose whether the stop is graceful, destructive, reversible, what happens to unsaved session state, or any auth requirements.

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 four-word sentence with no wasted words and the action is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact for a simple stop operation, though extremely minimal.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no behavioral detail, it leaves gaps around what stopping a session actually 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% and the single 'session' parameter is already described as 'Session name' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Stop' and 'Neovim session'. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, especially nvim_start, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or define scope beyond the session parameter.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states the action, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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