Open files in Neovim

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds useful behavioral context: it opens buffers, starts LSP clients, and reports buffer id, filetype, line count, and attached LSP clients. No contradiction with the 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?

Three tight sentences cover action, input format, return value, and usage timing. Every sentence earns its place and the primary purpose 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is complete: it explains input flexibility, what the call does, what it returns, and when to call it. No output schema exists, so the explicit return-value summary is valuable and sufficient.

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 both path and wait_ms. The description restates that a single path or array is accepted, but adds no meaningful parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Open one or more files in Neovim buffers') and adds the distinctive behavior of starting LSP clients. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like nvim_read_file or nvim_edit_lines.

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 'Call this before LSP tools,' which gives clear timing context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls slightly short of fully explicit routing.

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