type_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add the useful detail that diagnostics can be scoped to a single file, implying that omitting the file parameter returns project-wide diagnostics. However, it does not disclose the return format, potential side effects (if any), or whether it uses the tsconfig project explicitly beyond the schema's auto-detection note.

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 extremely concise, using only a 9-word fragment. It is front-loaded with the core content ('TypeScript errors and warnings') and includes the scoping qualifier. While it is not a full sentence, every word earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the primary purpose and the optional scoping behavior. However, since there is no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what the diagnostic results look like (e.g., an array of error/warning objects). The omission leaves a gap, but the core function is still understandable.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, describing the 'file' as an absolute path and 'tsconfig' with auto-detection. The description's phrase 'optionally scoped to a single file' aligns with the schema but does not add new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 as providing TypeScript errors and warnings, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools focused on dependencies and type queries. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieves' or 'reports'), so it reads more as a noun phrase than a complete statement of action.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It only mentions optional file scoping, implying a default whole-project behavior, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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