get_diagnostics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that results are sorted by severity descending, file, and line, and that the return envelope includes fields like totalCount, truncated, limit, and severity summary. It does not mention side effects or destructive behavior, which is appropriate for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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: the first conveys the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage context about trust and return format. No wasted words; every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

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 adequately explains the return envelope. It covers the prerequisite for analyzer diagnostics and the sorting behavior. For a tool with four well-documented parameters, the description is complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the return envelope structure (items, totalCount, truncated, limit, severity summary) and reiterating the trust requirement for analyzer diagnostics, which is not fully captured in the schema alone.

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 that the tool lists compiler errors and warnings, with an option to include analyzer diagnostics. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'compiler errors and warnings across the solution', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_health or analyze_method.

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 explicitly mentions that analyzer diagnostics require the solution to be trusted and directs users to 'trust_solution', providing clear context for when the includeAnalyzers parameter is usable. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not guidance.

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