get_ide_diagnostics

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses that results are real-time, come directly from the IDE, and do not trigger Gradle. It still omits operational details such as whether an IDE must be open or connected and what happens when the timeout expires or diagnostics are unavailable.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the action and diagnostic types, then adds the useful IDE-source and no-Gradle constraints. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The output schema removes the need to describe return fields, and the core operation is clear enough for a basic read-only call. Completeness is limited by undocumented optional parameters, missing IDE availability and failure behavior, and no explicit boundary with scan_project_diagnostics.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters. In particular, it never states that file_path optionally limits scope, how timeout_seconds affects the IDE request, or that include_warnings controls whether warnings accompany the reported errors.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: fetching compilation, unresolved-reference, and syntax errors from Android Studio or IntelliJ. "Without running Gradle" distinguishes it from build-based diagnostics, but it does not clearly differentiate the closer sibling scan_project_diagnostics.

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 wording supplies a clear use case: obtain current IDE-reported errors while avoiding a Gradle build. It does not explicitly say when to prefer scan_project_diagnostics or run_gradle_build, nor when file_path should be used to narrow the request.

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