Observe Neovim diff

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: it returns before/after text for changed rows, includes deltas, and importantly notes 'Resets the baseline.' This is crucial for understanding the tool's stateful interaction.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core function, and includes the comparison and behavioral note without unnecessary words.

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 has one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool returns, how it differs from nvim_observe, and the baseline reset behavior. It is complete without needing extra detail.

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 only parameter, sessionId, is already fully described in the schema as 'Session id returned by nvim_launch or nvim_attach.' The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that, and schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 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 returns only changes since the last observation, listing specific data types (changed screen rows, cursor/mode/size deltas). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling nvim_observe by presenting a smaller, targeted alternative.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Much smaller than a full nvim_observe for verifying a single action.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over its sibling and implies nvim_observe for full state needs.

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