get_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says it retrieves diagnostics, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires a running language server, or any other behavioral traits. The minimal transparency leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action, the second adds usage advice. Information is front-loaded and every sentence is necessary.

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's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and usage. It could mention the structure of the returned diagnostics, but for a basic retrieval tool, it is largely complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the effect of providing or omitting file_path: without it, returns diagnostics for all open files. This adds meaningful usage context beyond the schema's type definition.

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' and resource 'diagnostic messages (errors, warnings) for files.' It provides concrete examples of what problems it detects (syntax errors, type mismatches). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_code_actions' or 'get_inlay_hints', though the purpose is clear enough.

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 states when to use this tool ('to identify problems in code files') and mentions the behavior when file_path is omitted. But it does not provide when-not-to-use scenarios or mention alternative tools for related tasks, which would be helpful given many sibling diagnostic tools.

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