emacs_buffer_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It conveys a read-only listing operation, but it does not specify what metadata is returned, whether the default excludes hidden buffers, or any side effects. Basic transparency is present, but detail is lacking.

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 focused sentence that starts with the core action and adds only the essential resource and metadata qualifier. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. However, it does not clarify the default hidden-buffer behavior or describe the return shape, which would help an agent use it correctly without extra assumptions.

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, include_hidden, is fully documented in the schema with a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because schema coverage is 100%.

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 identifies the operation: list buffers with metadata, using specific verb-resource language. It is distinct from siblings like emacs_buffer_read or emacs_buffer_switch, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 intended use case—enumerating open buffers—is implied by the verb and resource, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings or when to set include_hidden. It is adequate but relies on inference.

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