typecheck_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal mechanism (getPreEmitDiagnostics via ts-morph) and output grouping by file, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., the project must be loaded), read-only nature, or potential performance implications, which would be useful behavioral context.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose and key implementation detail in a structured way. No wasted words, though the colon-heavy construction might be slightly less readable than a straightforward imperative sentence.

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 the presence of two parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the nature of the output but omits details like return format, default for max_diagnostics, and the requirement that the project be loaded first. These are important gaps for a tool that depends on project state.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning for the parameters 'name' or 'max_diagnostics', relying entirely on the schema descriptions. It does clarify the output grouping, which indirectly informs what the name parameter refers to, but this is minimal.

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 identifies the tool's output: real type errors from TypeChecker diagnostics, grouped by file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_unchecked_errors by specifying 'Real type errors' and the ts-morph implementation. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, relying on the tool name 'typecheck_project' to convey the operation.

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 the tool is used when type error information is needed, and the mention of 'getPreEmitDiagnostics' suggests it is for compile-time diagnostics. However, it does not state explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios, nor does it mention alternatives among the extensive sibling list.

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