tldr_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool does not run code, but does not mention whether it modifies files, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format is. The lack of side-effect or safety information is a significant gap.

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 consists of two succinct sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides a key usage hint. No extraneous words or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 complex context of 17 sibling tools, 4 parameters, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the output relates to other tools, what 'diagnostics' entail (error types, formatting), or how to combine with sibling tools for deeper analysis.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces the file/project concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but also does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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 it gets type-check and lint diagnostics for a file or project, and explicitly mentions finding errors without running code. It is specific about the resource (diagnostics) and verb (get), though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tldr_semantic or tldr_impact.

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 minimal usage guidance ('use to find errors without running the code'). It does not specify when not to use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives among the 17 sibling tools, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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