krl_workspace_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the extension dependency and the exact set of checks performed, and 'Collects ... from all open files' implies a non-mutating scan, but it never states read-only vs destructive behavior, expected latency on large workspaces, or what happens if the extension is absent.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the parenthetical checklist and the prerequisite. The first sentence is long and heavily parenthesized, but every clause carries distinct information.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is scanned, which checks run, and the extension prerequisite. The remaining gap is the shape of the result — whether it returns per-file diagnostic lists, severities, or an aggregate — which an agent cannot infer without an output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% with an empty properties object, leaving nothing for the description to compensate for.

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?

Specific verb ('Collects') plus a precise resource ('project-wide continuous KRL diagnostics') and an explicit file scope (.src, .dat, .sub across all open workspace files), backed by an enumerated list of check categories. The 'all open files / project-wide' framing implicitly separates it from snippet-level siblings like krl_lint_snippet, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and names no alternatives, so the agent must infer that this is the workspace-wide counterpart to krl_lint_snippet. The one condition it does state — 'Requires LiskinLabs KUKA KRL extension' — is a genuine prerequisite, which lifts it above a pure no-guidance score.

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