Read the active buffer's identity, dirty state, and current selection without altering it, so agents can inspect the open editor context safely.
Read active buffer identity, dirty state and selection without changing selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral guarantee beyond that: the read does not alter the current selection, which readOnlyHint alone does not promise. No return format or staleness/caching behavior is described.
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 with no filler; the verb and returned fields come first and the non-side-effect guarantee is appended compactly. Every clause earns its place.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields (identity, dirty state, selection) makes the definition sufficient to call correctly. It stops short of distinguishing this from the similarly named editor_status, which an agent may weigh against 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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and schema coverage is 100%.
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 ('Read') and enumerates the resource fields returned: active buffer identity, dirty state, and selection. The phrase 'without changing selection' implicitly contrasts it with editor_select, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of 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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for non-mutating inspection that must not disturb the cursor. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when to prefer editor_status or editor_read instead, and no preconditions given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.