get_state_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explicitly states 'Read-only — does not modify any editor state' and details conditional return fields (alternate_window, terminals). It also calls itself 'lightweight,' which adds performance context. However, it does not mention potential edge cases or error conditions, leaving a slight gap.

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 organized into purpose, usage, and return details. It is not overly long for the information it conveys, and each sentence earns its place. The format is scannable, with clear sections, though it could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return structure, including nested fields, conditional additions, and the meaning of each key. It also covers the tool's role in the broader context, making it complete for both invocation and result interpretation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema is empty and inherently 100% covered. The description appropriately focuses on return value semantics rather than parameters, hitting the baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific action: 'Lightweight snapshot of the Neovim session for quick orientation.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `get_state` by positioning this as the 'brief' version, making the tool's purpose and scope explicit.

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 explicitly says to 'Use this at the start of each turn' and provides an alternative: 'Use `get_state` instead when you need the full picture.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with a named sibling.

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