diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It reveals that module resolution happens before returning diagnostics, which is a useful process detail. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving part of the behavioral contract implicit.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action ('Parse a file') and includes the key qualifier 'after module resolution' without digressing. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a key context point (module resolution). It does not elaborate on return format, but since no output schema exists, this is not required. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's primary function.

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 schema has only a 'file' string with no description, and the description does not clarify whether 'file' refers to a path, content, or identifier. With schema coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain the parameter's semantics but only says 'a file', which adds little beyond the schema itself.

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 specific verbs and nouns: 'Parse a file', 'return clangd diagnostics', 'after module resolution'. It clearly conveys the tool's purpose and is distinct from siblings like 'document_symbols' or 'ast', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. The inclusion of 'clangd' and 'module resolution' adds specificity beyond a generic statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The description is purely functional with no contextual or decision-making support for an agent.

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