ingest_diagnostics

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true (the tool does not modify its environment), but the description says it 'updates the active diagnostic buffer, and records an immutable snapshot' — i.e., it mutates server state and persists a new record. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation, so an agent trusting the hint would underestimate the tool's side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb 'Ingests', with each comma-separated clause contributing a distinct fact (source examples, normalization, buffer update, snapshot). No filler, though the four-clause chain is dense.

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 values need not be described, and the effect chain is stated. But with 0% schema coverage for three parameters and no usage guidance, plus the unresolved conflict between the described writes and the read-only annotation, the definition is only minimally sufficient 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%, so the description carries the full burden for source, serverName, and the nested diagnostics array (file/range/message/severity/code). It only adds a loose gloss on 'external LSP diagnostics (e.g., from VS Code or language servers)' and explains none of the three parameters or the required item shape, leaving the gap largely unfilled.

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 names a specific verb and resource (ingest external LSP diagnostics) and enumerates the concrete effects: normalize to the unified schema, update the buffer, record a snapshot. An agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_live_diagnostics or get_diagnostic_snapshot, which it is implicitly the input-side counterpart of.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. The description never says to reach for this tool only when pushing diagnostics from an external editor/language server, nor does it contrast with get_live_diagnostics (read the buffer) or get_diagnostic_snapshot (read a snapshot). Usage context must be inferred entirely.

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