nexus_diagnose

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

The description discloses that outputs from tsc/eslint are parsed into structured diagnostics, which is extra behavioral detail beyond the sparse openWorldHint annotation. It does not mention potential side effects or error handling, but for a read-only analysis tool this is acceptable.

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 short sentences front-load the primary action and then summarize the output format. No redundant or vague words; every phrase 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?

The description provides the essential purpose and the structured output format. It does not mention defaults or failure behavior, but the schema clarifies defaults (both booleans true, files all). For a relatively simple tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description names tsc and eslint, giving meaning to the boolean parameters, but does not explain the files parameter. Schema coverage is only 33%, yet the files parameter is described in the schema. The description partially compensates for low coverage but not fully.

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 runs typecheck (tsc) and linter (eslint) and parses output into structured diagnostics. This is a specific verb+resource with a defined output, distinguishing it from siblings like nexus_test_run or nexus_exec.

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 for static analysis/typechecking/linting, which is clear from naming tsc and eslint. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool directly competes with this functionality, so the context is clear.

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