diagnose_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only mentions running checks and returning findings; it fails to mention the autoFix capability present in the schema, which could imply modification of files. It also omits any mention of permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 core description is short and front-loaded with the purpose and output. However, the leading '[mode: real, v3.1.0 headline]' is noise that adds no value for an agent and slightly detracts from the otherwise concise structure.

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 complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the parameters, the nature of the findings, or what 'prioritized' means, nor does it clarify the autoFix behavior, making it incomplete for safe and effective invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does name the five check types (race conditions, security, memory, logic, performance), which clarifies the 'checks' parameter, but it gives no guidance on output, autoFix, platforms, severityThreshold, or perCheckTimeoutMs. Most parameters remain unexplained.

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 identifies a specific verb ('vibe-check' / diagnose) with a resource (the project) and enumerates the exact scope: race conditions, security, memory, logic, and performance in parallel. It distinguishes itself from the many individual detect_* siblings by framing this as a combined sweep.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'in one parallel sweep' suggests a comprehensive check, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the individual detect_* tools or any exclusions. It leaves the agent to infer that this is for a full health check rather than a targeted one.

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