get_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses significant behavior: it returns only fatal errors, filters out spelling errors and warnings, auto-detects the language, and runs the appropriate checker. It does not mention output formatting or non-mutation explicitly, but the diagnostics framing makes the lack of side effects reasonably clear.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the key scope ('fatal errors'), and every clause adds value—language support, auto-detection, and token-saving filtering. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it runs, on which languages, and what it returns. It could mention the form of the error output or that this is a read-only operation, but the current content is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, triggering the baseline of 4. The description adds relevant context by explaining why no parameters are needed: the language is auto-detected and the appropriate checker is run automatically.

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 states a specific verb ('Run project diagnostics') and a clear resource, plus the return scope ('ONLY fatal errors'). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_complexity or search_in_project, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 provides clear usage context: use this to get fatal diagnostics across multiple supported languages, with auto-detection. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but with no parameterized inputs and a clear purpose, the intended usage is well implied.

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