Parse a report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only.' restates structured data rather than adding to it. What the description does add beyond annotations is the nature of the returned content (severity counts, statuses, device, diagnostics), which is useful given there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and file types, with no filler. The trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant with the annotations and could be dropped, but the overall size is proportionate.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the parser returns (severity counts, statuses, device, diagnostics), which is the main thing an agent needs to know. For a zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, this is close to sufficient.

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 all four parameters (path, project, workspace, maxDiagnostics) are already documented, including the 'optional if path is given' relationship and defaults. The description adds no syntax, format, or fallback detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb (Parse) and the exact resource types (.rpt/.summary/.pin) plus the shape of the result (severity counts, statuses, device, diagnostics). It is clear what it does, though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling parse_tbl or explain why an agent would choose one parser over the other.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many neighboring read/parse/inspect tools (parse_tbl, project_parse_file, project_inspect). The only usage-adjacent statement is 'Read-only', which is a safety note rather than a routing rule, so the agent must infer the context entirely.

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