List open buffers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the scope ('every loaded buffer') and the exact return fields (path, filetype, modified state), providing useful behavioral context 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb, includes the resource, and lists the return details. Every word provides value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

This is a simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations. The description fully communicates what the tool does and what it returns (path, filetype, modified state). Given the low complexity and the presence of safety annotations, the description is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke this 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline score of 4 applies, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than repeating schema information.

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 specific verb 'List' and the resource 'loaded buffer', and details exactly what is returned (path, filetype, modified state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nvim_open_file or nvim_read_file, which perform different 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?

The context is clear: this tool lists every loaded buffer, implying it is used to inventory open buffers. While it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, the role is self-evident from the description and the sibling tool set. No prerequisite or when-not-to-use guidance is needed for such a simple read-only listing tool.

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