lean_diagnostic_messages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description confirms a read action ('Get'), but adds no further behavioral details 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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with key information. It contains no redundancy, though it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters, an output schema, and many siblings, the description is very brief and lacks high-level context about filtering, timeouts, or result format. It does not fully compensate for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, parameters are well-documented in the schema. The main description adds no additional parameter information beyond listing types, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('compiler diagnostics') and scope ('for a Lean file'). It mentions the types of diagnostics (errors, warnings, infos), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like lean_build (building) or lean_code_actions (code actions).

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 main description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the parameter description for 'interactive' mentions when not to use it and suggests lean_code_actions, the overall description lacks context for usage decisions.

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