diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns type-check errors/warnings for a single file, which implies a read-only diagnostic operation, but it omits prerequisites, side effects, and whether the file must be saved or indexed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter tool.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description should do more to state prerequisites and how it relates to sibling tools such as workspace diagnostics.

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?

There is one parameter (file_path) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'for a single file,' which minimally reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no format, path-resolution, or required-state details to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 (Get), resource (type-check diagnostics), and scope (a single file), so an agent can immediately understand the core operation. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the single-file scope contrasts implicitly with the broader workspace tool.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to obtain diagnostics for one file. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance, and does not mention prerequisites such as whether the file must be open or the language server loaded.

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