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 mentions 'tracks error patterns over time' implying persistence or state, but does not disclose side effects, data storage, permission requirements, or whether the tool is read-only. The lack of behavioral context is a gap.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the action (run diagnostics) and resource (project), followed by value-add (tracking patterns). Every word earns its place.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of errors, summary). It mentions tracking patterns but lacks detail on output format or structure. With 3 parameters and no output schema, more context is needed for completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters (path, toolchain, command). No additional context or clarifying examples.

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 uses specific verbs and resources ('Run project diagnostics') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like auto_fix and get_file_content. It explicitly mentions capturing compiler errors, lint warnings, and test failures, providing a clear purpose.

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 (to capture errors and track patterns) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No comparison to siblings like scan_project or auto_fix, leaving the agent to infer context.

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