get_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'syntactic and semantic diagnostics', which adds some context, but does not disclose output format, whether projectPath is required, or any side effects. The description is too brief to fully inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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's simplicity and that schema covers parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks information about return structure or behavior, which is important since no output schema exists. The purpose is clear, but the agent would need to infer what 'diagnostics' entails beyond the given parenthetical.

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 coverage is 100% as filePath, fileContent, and projectPath each have a description in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only clarifying that the tool works on 'the file'. It does not provide additional parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Get syntactic and semantic diagnostics (errors/warnings) for the file'. The verb 'Get' combined with the resource 'diagnostics' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_completions or get_definition, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for retrieving errors/warnings from a file but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools (e.g., get_definition, get_references) are clearly different, but no direct comparison is made.

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