get_all_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses sorting by severity, a default cap of 50 results, and the 'summary.total' and 'summary.truncated' fields. It could be improved by noting any performance implications or that it scans all files, but current coverage is strong.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope. The second sentence adds critical behavioral details without any redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description reasonably explains the tool's behavior, including the summary fields. It could mention what a single diagnostic entry looks like or note that scanning all files may be slow on large projects, but it is largely complete for a diagnostics list tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about truncation and sorting, which relates to the 'limit' parameter, but adds little beyond what the schema already says for each parameter. No parameter-specific usage guidance is given.

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?

Clearly states 'Get TypeScript + ESLint errors and warnings for all files in the project.' This provides a specific verb (Get), resource (diagnostics), and scope (all files). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_diagnostics' by explicitly covering the entire project.

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 says 'Useful for checking project health after changes,' which gives a clear use case. It does not, however, explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_diagnostics' for single-file checks), which would improve the score.

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