Run Lua in Neovim

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.