get_live_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: results are 'bounded' (implying limits) and merged from both internal engines and ingested LSP sources with per-issue provenance. It does not mention rate limits or pagination behavior, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every clause carries information (scope, sources, provenance), though the sentence is slightly jargon-heavy for its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers provenance and source merging. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage routing across a crowded sibling set, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% for two parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. Neither the 'files' filter (limit 512) nor the 'severity' enum (error/warning) is mentioned or explained, leaving both parameters undocumented in any natural-language form.

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?

States a clear verb (Returns) and resource (active diagnostics and clusters), and specifies scope ('current bounded active') plus data sources ('internal engines and ingested LSP sources'). However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like get_diagnostic_snapshot or get_issue_detail, forcing the agent to infer the distinction.

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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings such as get_diagnostic_snapshot, compare_diagnostics, and get_issue_detail, an explicit routing statement is exactly what is missing, and none is provided.

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