read_buf_range

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

No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavior. It discloses read-only nature, reads from in-memory buffer, file path relative to Neovim's cwd, clamping of out-of-range values, swapping of start_line > end_line, and return format {lines, total_lines} with line-number prefix.

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?

124-word description is concise and well-structured. Purpose and behavior first, then parameter details, usage guidance, and return format. Every sentence provides unique value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, description includes return fields and behavior. Covers edge cases (clamping, swapping) and prerequisites (buffer must be open). Complete for a 3-parameter read tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds full meaning. It explains 'file: path relative to Neovim's cwd... must be open', 'start_line: first line to read (1-indexed, inclusive)', 'end_line: last line... clamped, swapped if needed'. This goes far beyond bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read a specific line range from a Neovim buffer,' specifying verb (read), resource (Neovim buffer), and scope (line range). It distinguishes from sibling 'read_full_buf' by noting when to use each.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you only need a section of a file. Use read_full_buf instead when you need the entire buffer.' Also warns that the buffer must be open in Neovim and reads from in-memory buffer, which may differ from disk.

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