List terminals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only listing action and describes what is included (job/channel and running state), but it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or any dependency on an active Neovim session. The 'List' verb implies non-destructiveness, but without annotations, richer context would be beneficial.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and clearly states the object and details. It contains no filler or redundant words, earning every word's 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 simple zero-parameter listing tool, the description is complete: it states the subject, scope, and included state attributes. There is no output schema, but the description adequately covers return expectations. It could mention whether it returns only visible buffers or includes hidden ones, but that is a minor gap.

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 as per the rubric. The description adds meaningful context about what is returned (terminal buffers with job/channel and running state), which complements the empty schema. No parameter-specific details are needed.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'terminal buffers', and the scope 'currently open in Neovim', which distinguishes it from nvim_list_buffers (all buffers) and nvim_open_terminal (which creates terminals). The added detail 'with their job/channel and running state' further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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: use when you need to see terminal buffers and their state. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over nvim_list_buffers, nvim_terminal_send, or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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