get_verse_diagnostics

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral detail: parsing method, deduplication, return format (structured JSON with fields), and source log path. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 well-organized with a summary line, then details, then return structure. It is mostly concise, though the return value list is slightly lengthy. Front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

The description fully explains the tool's operation, output format, and parameter effects. Combined with schema descriptions, the agent has all necessary information to use the tool correctly. No gaps identified.

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 descriptions for all parameters (tail_lines, file_filter, max_results, severity_filter), so the description adds no parameter-specific insight. Baseline 3 is appropriate given schema coverage is high despite context signaling 0% (likely a discrepancy).

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 states it retrieves Verse compile diagnostics from logs. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('verse diagnostics'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_verse_log_freshness (log recency) and get_latest_build_session (session info).

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 usage for diagnostics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling names.

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