clangd_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that an empty configurations array selects all, which is useful, but says nothing about timeout behavior or what diagnostics are produced. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly worded but still earns its place by documenting a non-obvious default.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no description, and annotations cover the read-only nature. However, the definition should do more to document the timeout parameter and clarify path semantics for a tool with zero schema coverage.

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 clarifies the 'managed file' meaning of path and the empty-equals-all semantics of configurations, but leaves timeout entirely undocumented. Partial compensation for a 3-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get diagnostics for a managed file'), which is clear enough to distinguish from read/edit siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with the other clangd_* tools, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The sentence 'Empty configurations selects all' describes parameter behavior rather than routing the agent to this tool over siblings like clangd_hover or clangd_references.

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