Neovim session info

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 clearly discloses what the tool reports (version, channel, cwd, buffer/window, connection resolution) and implies a read-only, status-check behavior. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything', but the reporting nature is evident.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place; no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, content, and usage. It tells the agent exactly what to expect (version, channel, cwd, buffer/window, connection) and when to use it. Nothing critical is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details (there are none), but also doesn't need to. The schema has no properties, and the description fully explains what the tool does without requiring parameter context.

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 uses the specific verb 'Report' and clearly identifies the resource as the connected Neovim instance, listing exact details (version, channel, working directory, buffer/window, connection resolution). This differentiates it from sibling tools focused on LSP, buffers, terminals, etc.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Use this first to confirm the agent is wired to a live Neovim', which establishes a clear primary use case and prioritization among sibling tools. This is strong guidance for when to invoke it.

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