xae_diagnostics

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real context beyond them: it merges two sources, includes TwinCAT's own entries, falls back to the list view, and explicitly does not trigger a rebuild. These are behavioral traits an agent needs and cannot get from 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?

It is front-loaded with the main resource, but the single rambling sentence stacks parentheticals and an em-dash aside, and the trailing fragment '`source` names where each part came from' is disconnected from the main clause. Information is present but the structure is heavier than needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still usefully mentions the `source` field. For a single-parameter read-only diagnostics tool, the description conveys the key behavior (merged sources, no rebuild). The only real omission is the meaning of tail_lines.

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 0% and the sole parameter (tail_lines, default 200) is undocumented in the schema. The description's phrase 'plus the pane's tail' only loosely gestures at this parameter and never explains that it controls how many tail lines are returned or what the default is, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb+resource: read the current XAE Error List (errors/warnings/messages with file:line) merged with the Build output pane. It distinguishes itself from xae_build by stating it works 'without rebuilding'. The dense parentheticals and the odd 'this focuses the Error List window' clause make the core purpose slightly harder to extract than it should be.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting build/error diagnostics. The only explicit conditional is an internal implementation fallback ('read from the list view when the automation interface reports none'), which is about how it reads, not when the agent should choose it over siblings like xae_build or tc_audit_tail. No when-not guidance is given.

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