codeql_diagnostics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieval of diagnostics and metadata but does not disclose potential side effects, file requirements, permissions, or whether any analysis is triggered. For a mutation or analysis tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose in one clear sentence and then structuring Args/Returns in a clean, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

For a simple, single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It covers purpose and the parameter, and the output schema handles return values. However, it lacks guidance on when to use the tool and does not describe any behavioral expectations (e.g., whether the file must exist or be of a specific type).

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?

The description provides an Args section explaining 'file_uri: URI of the CodeQL file', which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare string type. Even though schema coverage is reported as 0%, the description clearly compensates by defining the parameter's purpose and format expectations.

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 tool retrieves diagnostics (syntax/semantic warnings, errors) for a file, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like hover, definition, and references by focusing on 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: to get diagnostics for a file. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. It offers only implied context.

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