List buffers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden. It accurately describes the read-only action of listing buffers and adds a behavioral nuance (terminal buffers report buftype 'terminal'). However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state, nor does it mention ordering, pagination, or potential errors, leaving modest gaps.

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, tightly worded sentence. It front-loads the primary action ('List all buffers') and follows with specific details, containing no fluff or redundant 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the return fields and the special case for terminal buffers. It lacks an explicit statement of the exact data structure (e.g., array of objects), but for a simple list tool, the enumerated fields provide adequate contextual completeness.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. This score reflects the baseline for a parameterless tool where the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('List all buffers') and specifically enumerates the included fields (number, name, type, modified state, line count), making it distinct from sibling tools like nvim_list_windows or nvim_list_terminals. The addition of the terminal buffer behavior further clarifies the scope.

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?

The description implies usage when buffer information is needed, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over related tools such as nvim_list_windows or nvim_read_buffer.

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