java_get_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adds behavioral context such as attempting active pull from server (LSP 3.17+), and fallback to cached results. This discloses version dependency and behavior variation, which is valuable beyond the tool's basic function.

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 with no fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, efficiently conveying the behavior and fallback.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (active vs. cached) and version dependency. It is sufficiently complete for the agent to use correctly, though mentioning the return format (list of diagnostics) could improve 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already describes the parameter (filePath) as absolute path or URI. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get diagnostics (errors/warnings) for a file', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('diagnostics'), and scopes it to a single file. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'java_get_workspace_diagnostics' which targets workspace-level diagnostics.

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 provides context on behavior (active pull vs. cached) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'java_get_workspace_diagnostics'. Usage guidance is implied but not formalized.

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