scan_project_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the scan is sequential, static (no Gradle invocation), and project-wide, which hints at cost. It stops short of saying how expensive a full scan is or how partial results are signalled when bounds are hit.

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 well-formed sentence with the scope and the key differentiator ('without running Gradle') front-loaded. No filler, though it is arguably too terse given three undocumented parameters.

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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The gap is the input side: three tunable parameters including a timeout and a file cap that govern runtime behavior are left entirely undocumented for what is potentially an expensive project-wide scan.

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 none of the three parameters (max_files, timeout_seconds, include_warnings) are explained in the description. Worse, the prose says it collects 'technical debt warnings' while include_warnings defaults to false, leaving the agent to guess at the interaction.

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 specific verb and resource ('Sequentially scans all Kotlin files in the project workspace') plus the outputs collected ('compilation errors and technical debt warnings'). The phrase 'without running Gradle' implicitly separates it from run_gradle_build, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'without running Gradle' clause implies this is a lightweight alternative to a Gradle build, which gives an agent a usable cue. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_ide_diagnostics or run_gradle_build, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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