lsp_diagnostics_summary

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

The description indicates that the tool operates on cached diagnostics and produces a summary with root cause, suggesting a read-only operation. However, without annotations, it does not fully disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or whether it warms the cache (the workspaceWide parameter hints at warming, but this is not explicitly described as behavioral).

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 sentence of 20 words, conveying the tool's purpose concisely without extraneous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action and result.

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 low complexity (two optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns (a summary grouped by severity, file, source, message, with root cause). It could mention the return format (e.g., string or object) but is otherwise complete for the tool's scope.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The overall description adds the 'likely root cause' aspect, which is not parameter-specific. Since schema already explains the parameters well, the description provides marginal additional value for parameter semantics.

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 returns a summary of cached diagnostics grouped by severity, file, source, and message with a likely root cause. This specific verb and resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like lsp_diagnostics (raw diagnostics) and lsp_explain_diagnostics (explanation of specific 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., lsp_diagnostics for raw data, lsp_explain_diagnostics for explanations). The description implies a summary use case but does not explicitly state conditions or exclusions.

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