get_state_brief

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fully discloses the read-only nature, the return fields (mode, cwd, buffers, etc.), the conditional alternate_window, and the format of context. No hidden behaviors are implied.

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 extremely concise, with every sentence serving a clear purpose: purpose, safety note, usage guidance, and return details. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is self-sufficient. It explains all return fields and how they are structured. The context of sibling tools (like `get_state`) is properly referenced for completeness.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter info. However, it compensates by thoroughly explaining the return structure, which is valuable for understanding the tool's output even though no output schema exists.

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 is a 'lightweight snapshot of the Neovim session for quick orientation' and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool `get_state`, which provides the 'full picture'. The verb 'get' and resource 'state brief' are specific and well-defined.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this at the start of each turn to see what the user is working on. Use `get_state` instead when you need the full picture.' This clearly advises when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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