xae_diagnostics

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that results come from the existing state without triggering a rebuild, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about result freshness, whether the list is cleared, or how the two output sections are delimited.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the key constraint ('without rebuilding') attached at the end. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 one-parameter, read-only diagnostics tool with an output schema documenting the return payload, the description covers what is returned and that no build is triggered. The remaining gap is the undocumented tail_lines parameter, which is the only thing an agent must actively set.

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% for the single parameter tail_lines (integer, default 200), and the description never mentions it. The phrase 'the tail of the Build output pane' implies a configurable tail exists, but gives no hint about what the parameter controls, its units, bounds, or what happens when it is omitted.

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 states a specific read action and its exact payload: the current error list (errors/warnings/messages with file:line) plus the tail of the Build output pane. The phrase 'without rebuilding' implicitly routes the agent away from the build sibling (xae_build), so the tool is distinguishable without opening the schema.

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?

'without rebuilding' is a genuine usage cue that tells the agent to prefer this over triggering a build when it only wants existing diagnostics. However, no alternative is named explicitly and there is no statement of when this tool is not appropriate (e.g., stale results if no build has run).

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