lsp_compare_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses the tool's behavior: it compares snapshots and categorizes changes (fixed, introduced, unchanged). While it doesn't explicitly state if the operation is read-only or the return format, the stated purpose is transparent enough for an agent to understand the side effects.

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 that directly conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has only two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core functionality and hints at the output (identifying changes). However, a brief mention of output format or example would improve completeness. Still, for this complexity level, it's near the top.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions ('Snapshot ID to compare from' and 'Snapshot ID to compare to'). The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool compares two diagnostic snapshots to identify fixed, introduced, and unchanged diagnostics. It uses a specific verb (compare) and resource (diagnostic snapshots), distinguishing it from sibling tools like lsp_snapshot_diagnostics (create snapshots) and lsp_diagnostics (current 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., creating snapshots via lsp_snapshot_diagnostics) or scenarios to avoid. This lack of contextual usage instructions limits agent decision-making.

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