get_project_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a diagnostic pass, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, potential performance impact, or authentication requirements.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous words. Action and scope are front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return (counts). It could optionally mention if only counts or full diagnostics are returned, but is adequate for use.

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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by confirming the tool accepts no arguments and operates on the entire project. This is sufficient and clear.

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?

Description clearly identifies the action ('run'), the scope ('full TypeScript diagnostic pass on the entire project'), and the return value ('error and warning counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_file_diagnostics, which focus on individual files.

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?

Description implies usage for whole-project diagnostics but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_file_diagnostics for files). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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