diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that results are pushed asynchronously by the language server, may be empty if no diagnostics have been sent yet, and that a report labelled INCOMPLETE during server warm-up means a clean result does not prove the code compiles. This is exemplary transparency about potential pitfalls.

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 yet thorough, using four sentences to cover purpose, parameter usage, batching efficiency, and critical behavioral caveats. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the core purpose before diving into details.

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 tool's complexity—asynchronous LSP results, potential empty diagnostics, and the INCOMPLETE label—the description covers all necessary context. It explains parameter variations, the push-based nature, and the implication of results during server warm-up, providing a complete picture for an agent without needing an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the deprecated uri parameter, the behavior of omitting or passing [] for uris, and that a multi-URI call replaces multiple single-file calls. Minor issue: the description says 'file:// URIs' while the schema allows absolute and relative paths, but this is a simplification that the schema clarifies.

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 returns LSP errors, warnings, and hints for one file, several files, or the whole workspace, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_in_files or find_references by focusing on diagnostics, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: pass specific URIs to check those files, omit or pass [] to query all files, and batch multiple URIs in one call to replace multiple single-file calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient to determine appropriate use.

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