java_get_workspace_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it can be expensive, or if it may cause side effects. The implication is a read operation, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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 concise sentences: the first immediately conveys the purpose, and the second adds a relevant caveat. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 description provides the core purpose and a limitation but does not describe the return value or format. Since there is no output schema, the description should hint at what diagnostics look like (e.g., list of issues per file). For a zero-parameter tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered (100%). Per guidelines, this gives a baseline of 4. No additional parameter details are needed.

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 pulls diagnostics for the entire workspace, specifying the LSP version. The verb 'pull' and resource 'diagnostics for the entire workspace' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like java_get_diagnostics which likely target a single file.

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 only guidance is a note about potential lack of support across language server versions. No explicit instructions on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., java_get_diagnostics for file-level diagnostics), nor when not to use it.

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