jumpToFirstError

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

The description discloses the full behavioral sequence (get diagnostics, open file, add decoration) and the return condition. While annotations already mark it idempotent, the description adds detail on the exact steps. It does not explicitly state that decorations are modified, but the mention of 'decoration' implies the side effect. Good transparency overall.

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 extremely concise—two sentences front-loading the action and then the return. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. Ideal structure for a 0-parameter tool.

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 parameters and output schema, the description sufficiently covers all needed information: what the tool does, how it works, and what happens if no error exists. Annotations add further clarity on idempotency. The tool's simplicity is matched by a complete description.

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?

There are no parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds value by explaining the composite behavior, which is more than merely repeating schema info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets that.

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 the action 'Jump to first workspace error' and explains the sequence of underlying calls (getDiagnostics→openFile→decoration). It also specifies the return value when no errors exist, providing a precise purpose distinct from sibling tools like getDiagnostics or openFile alone.

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 usage through its action statement but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this composite tool versus individually calling getDiagnostics or openFile. No when-not or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer context from the sibling list.

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