diagnose_workspace

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

Without annotations, the description explicitly states the tool is read-only, bounded, does not build/execute/modify files, and provides compact severity summaries and deduplicated issues. This is excellent behavioral disclosure covering safety and output behavior.

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?

A single sentence packs key attributes (bounded, read-only, reuses analyzers, output type, non-mutating) without redundancy. It is well-front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the tool does, its safety profile, and its return value. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description isn't required to explain them. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to explain.

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 verb 'diagnose' clearly targets the workspace, and the description distinguishes it from individual analyzer tools by noting it reuses them and returns aggregated, deduplicated results. This makes the tool's purpose specific and differentiated from its siblings.

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 implies a combined, high-level diagnosis across multiple analyzers, but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions like 'for a single package, use inspect_package'. Clear context is provided, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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