list_nvim_buffers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists buffers, but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure), whether it includes hidden buffers, how it handles multiple Neovim instances, or any error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List all open buffers') and appropriately sized for its simplicity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of buffer IDs, names, or states), how to interpret the output, or any limitations (e.g., buffers in non-current directories). For a tool with no structured output documentation, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter information is required or provided.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all open buffers in Neovim instances'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the scope ('running in the current directory'), which helps distinguish it from generic buffer listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_buffer' or 'reload_all_buffers' in terms of specific use cases.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'Neovim instances running in the current directory', which implies a context, but doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'get_current_buffer' (for a single buffer) or 'reload_all_buffers' (for refreshing buffers). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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