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

The description discloses that applying an action saves the file, adding a concrete behavioral detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also clarifies the list vs. apply distinction, which is helpful.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the main purpose (list or apply code actions) and immediately follow with the optional apply_index behavior and the common use case. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, the file-saving side effect, and the intended use case. It does not detail return values, but with no output schema and a straightforward list operation, the provided info is adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents apply_index semantics ('Index from a previous list call; omit to only list'). The description reinforces this but adds little new meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists LSP code actions at a position and can apply one by passing apply_index. It uses specific verbs (list/apply) and names the resource (LSP code actions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like nvim_diagnostics.

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 clear context: 'Use this to apply quick fixes for diagnostics.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but this guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to use it.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-readOnly; the description adds valuable specifics: it saves by default, skips format-on-save autocmds, produces minimal diffs, and returns fresh LSP diagnostics. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone reveal.

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?

Four sentences deliver the core purpose, range semantics, insert behavior, save behavior, and post-edit formatting guidance with no wasted words. The most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a mutating file-editing tool: it covers how to specify the range, how to insert, save semantics, autocmd behavior, return diagnostics, and follow-up formatting. With no output schema, the return-value note is especially useful and there are no critical gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description reinforces the 1-based inclusive range and the insert trick, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: replace lines start_line..end_line with new text in a file. It also frames itself as the default way to edit files, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like nvim_format and nvim_code_actions.

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?

It clearly states this is the default editing method and explicitly directs the agent to use nvim_format after editing is done. It also explains the insert-before convention. It does not enumerate when to prefer other editing-related siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for a safe choice.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable protocol details about how arguments are passed ('through `...`') and the requirement to use `return` to send a value back, which is not explicitly stated in annotations but is essential for correct invocation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then the argument/return contract, then usage guidance. No filler or 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?

Given the tool is a generic execution hook, the description adequately covers the execution contract (args, return), the use case (plugins without dedicated tool), and the safety profile through annotations. It lacks an explicit mention of error behavior or supported Lua value types for args/returns, but for a code-execution tool this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and already documents `code` as 'Lua source; use return to send a value back' and `args` as 'Values passed to the chunk as ...'. The description repeats these details without adding new meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Run a Lua chunk inside Neovim and return its value.' It clearly distinguishes from higher-level sibling tools by positioning this as a generic escape hatch for 'plugins that have no dedicated tool'.

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 to reach plugins that have no dedicated tool,' which implies using dedicated sibling tools when available and only falling back to this generic executor. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

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

The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive tool. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explicitly stating that the file is saved after formatting, which is not derivable from the annotations alone. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information and earns its place entirely.

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's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: scope (whole file or range), the action (format and save), and the formatter context. The schema and annotations cover the remaining details, and an output schema is absent so return values do not need explanation. It is sufficiently complete.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameters in detail. It does add a slight contextual hint about whole file vs. range, but this adds minimal value over the 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Format') on a specific resource ('a whole file or a line range') and additionally notes that it saves afterwards. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on formatting, which is unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: formatting either an entire file or a specific line range. It does not, however, explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools like nvim_code_actions that might also be able to format, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds that it works through LSP, which is useful dependency context. However, it doesn't clarify whether the tool returns a location, navigates the buffer, or what happens when no definition is found. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function in just 10 words, exactly what's needed for a simple LSP query tool.

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?

The tool is simple with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic operation but leaves ambiguous the return value or any cursor/buffer side effects. For a tool without an output schema, a bit more detail about the expected result or failure behavior would improve completeness, but it remains minimally viable.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions for all 4 parameters, including line/column being 1-based and wait_ms being an LSP timeout (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'at a position' adds little beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter meaning.

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 ('Find where the symbol at a position is defined') and the mechanism ('through the LSP'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like nvim_references and nvim_hover by focusing specifically on definitions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to locate a definition. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the focused purpose makes the intended usage obvious. Sibling tool names like nvim_references and nvim_hover further clarify the distinction.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns the same text the editor shows on hover, which helps the agent understand the output without contradiction.

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 action verb and includes the essential scope and output equivalence. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does a good job of indicating the return content ('same text the editor shows on hover'). It lacks details about exact formatting (e.g., plain text vs. markdown), but it is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with strong annotations.

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 already has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for path, line, column, and wait_ms. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly defines the resource as 'type and documentation information for the symbol at a position'. It further clarifies by noting this is 'the same text the editor shows on hover', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nvim_goto_definition or nvim_references.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving hover-style information, which is contextually distinct from other tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it stops short of full explicit guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by stating it starts LSP clients and supports a wait_ms control for client attachment, which goes beyond the structured hints and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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 three sentences: core action, input/output summary, and optional use. Information is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose with no filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description explains return values (buffer id, filetype, line count, LSP clients). It also covers input format, optional waiting behavior, and distinguishes from siblings. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter hints ('single path or array', 'tune wait_ms') largely restate the schema and add little semantic value beyond the structured field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Open one or more files in Neovim buffers and start their LSP clients.' It names the verb, resource, and distinctive side effect. It also differentiates from siblings by noting 'Other tools open files on demand,' giving the tool a clear identity.

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 clear usage context: 'use it to pre-warm files or tune wait_ms' and notes that other tools open files on demand. This helps an agent decide when to use the tool, though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives or state explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Opens the file if needed' discloses a potential side effect, and 'with line numbers' hints at the return format. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not detail error handling or exact output structure.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains a key behavior (opening the file), and the third gives parameter guidance. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 read tool with strong annotations and complete schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the tool's core behavior, optional parameters, and a key side effect. While it could mention error cases or return format in more detail, the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100% with each parameter described. The description adds practical context by explaining that start_line and end_line are for 'read a slice of a large file,' which clarifies their purpose beyond the schema's individual descriptions. This reinforces the 1-based inclusive semantics and provides a use-case scenario, adding value over the schema alone.

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's purpose: 'Read a file through Neovim with line numbers.' It uses a specific verb (read) and resource (file/buffer), and distinguishes itself from sibling edit tools like nvim_edit_lines and nvim_insert_lines by emphasizing read-only behavior and line-numbered output. The title 'Read lines from a Neovim buffer' reinforces this.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'Use start_line and end_line to read a slice of a large file,' which gives context for when parameters are relevant. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as nvim_open_file or nvim_edit_lines, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The usage guidance is present but implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it uses LSP and finds 'every' reference, but does not disclose return format, error behavior, or how it handles the wait_ms timeout. It provides some context beyond annotations but not rich detail, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives usage context. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema covers parameters, and annotations cover safety. The description explains the purpose and use case. It doesn't describe return value or edge cases, but for a read-only LSP references tool with no output schema, this is adequately complete for an agent to invoke correctly. A 4 fits.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all four parameters (path, line, column, wait_ms) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Find every reference'), the target ('symbol at a position'), and the method ('through the LSP'). This distinguishes it from siblings like nvim_goto_definition (jump to definition) and nvim_hover (show info), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 'Use this before a rename or a signature change,' giving a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, which would move it to a 5.

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

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that it 'save[s] every changed file' and operates 'across the whole workspace,' which is important behavioral context. It doesn't cover undoability or permission requirements, but it adds meaningful detail about side effects.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the second provides a comparative benefit. Every word earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it does (LSP rename), scope (workspace), and side effects (saves changed files). It is sufficiently complete for this straightforward mutation tool, though it could mention potential reliability dependencies on the LSP.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Rename a symbol across the whole workspace with the LSP, then save every changed file.' It uses a specific verb and resource (rename symbol) and distinguishes itself from sibling editing tools by emphasizing workspace-wide LSP-based renaming.

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 context by stating 'Safer than a text search and replace,' which implies when this tool should be preferred over naive text editing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the rationale gives a clear usage signal.

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