biome_diagnostics

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and the description adds behavioral context: it runs external executables, persists ProjectFinding rows, and records run status (unavailable/error/succeeded). This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 reasonably concise and starts with a clear purpose statement. It packs several details (executable, reporter, persistence, status tracking) without excessive verbosity. Minor improvement could be breaking parameter-related content into a clearer structure.

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 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main workflow but lacks detail on parameter specifics and the output format. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with side effects and multiple inputs.

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%, yet the description only implicitly relates parameters: 'files' are mentioned as 'project-relative files', 'scriptName' is hinted but not explicitly explained. Parameters like 'projectId', 'projectRef', and 'maxFindings' are not described at all. The description fails to add sufficient semantic meaning for the majority of parameters.

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 action ('run', 'persist', 'record'), the resource ('Biome diagnostics', 'files'), and the specific behavior (uses `check --reporter=gitlab`, persists ProjectFinding rows under source 'biome'). It distinguishes from siblings like eslint_diagnostics by specifying 'Biome' and 'GitLab-reporter package script'.

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 provides guidance by stating 'File-mode only' and 'deliberately avoids Biome's experimental JSON reporter', implying it is for deterministic file-by-file checking. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over sibling diagnostic tools (e.g., eslint_diagnostics) or provide conditions for avoidance.

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