get_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that without a file_path, diagnostics for all open files are returned. This is a key behavioral detail, though it does not cover error handling or return format.

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 two well-structured sentences. The first states the purpose, the second elaborates on usage. No extraneous information.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and parameter behavior. It could mention the structure of returned diagnostics, but it is sufficient for selection and basic invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the optional file_path parameter's effect: when omitted, diagnostics for all open files are returned. This adds meaning beyond the plain schema.

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 verb 'Get diagnostic messages' and the resource 'for files'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_code_actions or get_completions by focusing specifically on errors and warnings from the language server.

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 explains when to use the tool ('to identify problems in code files') and provides context for parameter usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools for related tasks.

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