ide_get_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering but does not describe the return format (e.g., structured diagnostics objects), whether it returns stale or live diagnostics, or any side effects. Key behavioral traits such as output shape and potential errors are omitted.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function and key optional filtering behavior without unnecessary detail. It is concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description needs to provide sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks details on result format, error handling, and how the required workspace context is used. This is a minimal but not fully complete description for a tool with three parameters.

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 provides parameter names and types but no descriptions. The description mentions filtering by 'file' and 'severity', which maps to 'path' and 'severity', but it does not explain the required 'workspaceId' parameter or acceptable severity values. With schema coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates.

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 tool's function: getting IDE diagnostics, with optional filtering by file or severity. This distinguishes it from sibling IDE tools like ide_symbol_search or ide_read_buffer, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or explicit exclusions. The purpose implies usage, but the description does not help an agent decide between this and similar diagnostic tools.

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