get_all_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the return content (errors, warnings, suggestions with file locations) but does not mention potential performance implications, whether it triggers compilation, or if it is read-only. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the action, the second describes the content. Every word adds value, and no unnecessary details are present.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and return type adequately. It is complete enough given the simplicity, though it could mention if the tool is read-only or has side effects.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it provides no parameter-specific information but none is required.

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 retrieves all TypeScript diagnostics from all watched projects, specifying the types of diagnostics (errors, warnings, suggestions) and that they include file locations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_file_diagnostics and get_diagnostic_count.

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 broad usage for getting all diagnostics across projects, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_file_diagnostics or get_package_diagnostics. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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