LSP format buffer

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of modifying the buffer in place, which is a mutation. However, it does not mention prerequisites like an active LSP client, reversibility, or failure behavior, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant words. Every phrase adds value: 'using its language server' and 'apply the changes in 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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core function and side effect. It is slightly incomplete by not addressing the need for an attached language server or what happens on failure, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward formatting tool.

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% for the only parameter (bufnr), with the description 'Buffer number. Omit for the current buffer.' The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, 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 clearly states a specific action ('Format a buffer') using a specific resource ('its language server') and notes in-place application. This distinguishes it from sibling LSP tools like hover, definition, rename, and code_action, which have different purposes.

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 conveys when to use: when you want to format a buffer via LSP. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., nvim_lsp_code_action for formatting via code actions). Thus clear context but no exclusions or alternatives.

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