eslint_diagnostics

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds that the tool persists ProjectFinding rows, records run statuses, and operates only on specified files. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though details about side effects (e.g., overwriting previous findings) are missing.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose and adds crucial constraints. Every clause serves a purpose, with no wasted words.

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 has 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema (not shown), the description covers core behavior but lacks parameter guidance. For a tool with side-effects and multiple sibling diagnostics, more parameter context would improve completeness.

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 mentions 'project-relative files' and does not explain parameters like projectId, projectRef, scriptName, or maxFindings. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's names and types.

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 states it is an ESLint diagnostics ingestion tool that runs local ESLint on specific files, persists findings, and records run status. It distinguishes from broad-project lint tools by stating 'File-mode only; does not run broad project lint.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling diagnostic tools like biome_diagnostics or oxlint_diagnostics.

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 usage for specific project-relative files and notes it does not run broad project lint, giving context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, leaving the agent to infer.

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