project_diagnostic_runs

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little behavioral context. It mentions 'cache freshness/age' which hints at caching behavior, but overall, the description does not go beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences: the first states functionality, the second provides usage guidance. Every word is essential, no redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 complexity, annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and presence of an output schema (implied by 'including...'), the description covers most aspects. The missing parameter explanations lower the score, but the overall context is fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by 'source' and 'status' implicitly ('by source and status'), but does not explain projectId, projectRef, limit, or cacheStalenessMs. With 6 parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to understand all inputs.

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 it lists recent diagnostic runs with specific fields like state, duration, counts, command, etc. It includes a specific scope ('diagnostic source runs') and the verb 'list' makes the action unambiguous. Among siblings like biome_diagnostics or eslint_diagnostics, this tool is unique in focusing on run history, not current 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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to distinguish no findings from a diagnostic source that did not run or ran too long ago.' This helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools (e.g., diagnostic_refresh for triggering a run).

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