get_diagnostics_code

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'integrated linters' and does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it scans the entire workspace by default, or any performance implications. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation fallback.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a relatively involved parameter set, the description is too sparse. It does not mention the return format, default workspace behavior, or any limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete context to invoke the tool appropriately.

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 each parameter has a clear description (path, format, severities, includeSource). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the general concept of warnings and errors, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Analyzes'), identifies the resource ('code'), and specifies the method ('using integrated linters'). It clearly communicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from file-manipulation and project-analysis siblings, though it could be more precise by explicitly stating it returns 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_project). The description only states what the tool does, leaving the decision to the agent without any contextual cues or exclusions.

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