zig_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states it gets diagnostics via ZLS. It omits important traits like whether it requires an active ZLS instance, if it performs any side effects, or the format of return data.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness (e.g., mentioning that it returns a list of errors and warnings).

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 only one parameter with full schema coverage, the tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return format. It does not, leaving the agent unsure of what to expect. Additionally, no usage context is given.

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 single parameter file_path is fully described in the schema as an absolute path to a .zig file. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('diagnostics for a Zig source file'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like zig_build or zig_hover by focusing on diagnostic information via ZLS.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as zig_hover or zig_references. The description does not mention prerequisites or contexts where diagnostics are appropriate.

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