diagnostics

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output format (capped, sorted, with count) and that empty output means clean. However, it does not mention side effects, rate limits, or auth requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 description is concise, conveying purpose, format, and defaults in a single sentence. It could be structured more clearly (e.g., separate sentences for parameters), but overall it is not verbose.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return values (format, sorted, count). It covers main parameters but leaves some (backend, maxResults) undocumented. Siblings are many, but the description sufficiently distinguishes the tool's purpose.

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 40% (2 of 5 parameters described). The description adds context for path and scope (defaults and interaction). But projectPath, backend, and maxResults are unexplained in both schema and description, failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 returns compiler/linter diagnostics in a specific format (file:line:col severity [code]: message), sorted by severity with a count. It distinguishes from sibling tools like symbol or search tools by specifying its role as a 'compact stand-in for raw build output'.

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 when to use (as a compact stand-in for raw build output) and explains default behavior and scope options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.

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