GetLocalTypes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose error handling, prerequisites, or side effects. However, the description is not misleading and does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 that front-loads the purpose with a clear verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description is adequate for a simple get tool with two parameters, but it lacks explanation of the return format, error cases, or what 'implementations include' means. Without an output schema, an agent might need more context to interpret results.

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%, and the description adds meaningful examples (e.g., 'ZCL_MY_CLASS' for class_name) and contextual explanation for the version parameter ('active' for deployed, 'inactive' for modified). This goes beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 action (Retrieve), resource (local types source code from a class), and includes that implementations are included. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like GetLocalDefinitions or GetLocalMacros by explicitly naming 'local types'.

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 specifies the tool's purpose but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives. It mentions support for active/inactive versions but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative tool references for similar resources.

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