Launch Neovim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'isolated, disposable', 'owned by this server', 'attach to it as a UI client', and 'returns a session id'. However, it doesn't disclose lifecycle details (e.g., what happens if nvim_close isn't called, cleanup behavior, or resource limits), leaving some behavioral 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return value, then the cleanup instruction. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 the output schema exists and the input schema has 100% coverage, the description sufficiently contexts the tool as the starting point for a Neovim session and the counterpart to nvim_close. It could mention that other tools depend on this session id, but the phrase 'for the other tools' implies that clearly enough.

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%, so per baseline the description doesn't need to explain parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but earns no extra credit. It only mentions the session id return value, not any input params.

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 tool's purpose: it launches an isolated, disposable Neovim instance, attaches to it as a UI client, and returns a session id. It uses a specific verb ('Launch') and resource ('Neovim instance'), and the 'isolated, disposable' detail distinguishes it from other nvim tools.

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?

Gives clear usage context: this is the entry point that returns a session id for other tools, and explicitly says to use nvim_close when finished. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like nvim_attach, but the session id phrasing implies this tool is used first, which is adequate guidance.

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