lsp_explain_diagnostics

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

The description discloses that it uses LSP-only information and does not use AST extraction, but no annotations are provided. It does not state if the operation is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects. Partial transparency but adequate for a low-risk operation.

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?

Three concise sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value—purpose, grouping behavior, and a key limitation. No wasted words.

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?

Lacks output description (e.g., format of grouped diagnostics and fix order). No mention of prerequisites like LSP server state. Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description falls short of fully specifying the tool's behavior.

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 good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, so 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 explains diagnostics using LSP-only information, groups by root cause, and proposes fix order. It distinguishes from siblings like lsp_diagnostics by specifying it does not use AST extraction.

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 hints at usage when LSP-only info is sufficient (no AST), but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings like lsp_diagnostics and lsp_diagnostics_summary are not compared, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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