Observe Neovim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying the output format (plain text rows with no cursor markers or line numbers), the reliability benefit (substring matching is reliable), and an important side effect (resetting the nvim_observe_diff baseline). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or any potential impacts on the Neovim session.

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 concise three-sentence structure that front-loads the core purpose, then adds relevant details about output format and side effects. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it a model of efficient prose.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, output characteristics, and side effect. It does not discuss error handling or performance, but these are not essential for a basic observe tool. The description complements the output schema by explaining the nature of the returned data.

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 input schema has full coverage (100%) for the single sessionId parameter, whose description is clear: 'Session id returned by nvim_launch or nvim_attach.' The description adds no further detail about the parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: returning the rendered Neovim screen as plain text rows plus metadata. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and specifies the resources (screen content, cursor, mode, size, window geometry). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like nvim_observe_diff, nvim_input, and nvim_command.

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 implicitly suggests this tool is for reading the current screen state ("The screen is the source of truth"). It also notes the side effect of resetting the nvim_observe_diff baseline, which hints at a relationship to nvim_observe_diff, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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