Open a file in Neovim

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it starts an LSP client, waits (via wait_ms), and returns specific metadata. These details go beyond structured annotations and help the agent understand side effects and the tool's purpose.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the primary action and returns, the second gives a direct usage directive. Information is front-loaded and 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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates return values (buffer id, filetype, line count, LSP clients), explains the prerequisite for LSP tools, and discloses the LSP startup behavior. For a relatively simple tool with only two parameters, this is complete enough. Minor gap: no mention of potential side effects like modifying buffer state, but idempotency annotation covers repeated calls.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the file path and wait time, which are already described. 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 clearly states the specific action: 'Open a file in a Neovim buffer and start its LSP client.' It also uniquely positions the tool among siblings by noting 'Call this before LSP tools,' which distinguishes it from read-only tools like nvim_read_file or edit tools.

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 instructs 'Call this before LSP tools,' giving clear usage context and sequence. It implies this is a prerequisite for LSP operations, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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