get_type

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format well ('object (5 keys)', 'array (100 items)'), but is silent on error behavior for an unloaded alias or a nonexistent path, which matters for a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and type enumeration, then Args/Returns. There is mild redundancy between the opening sentence and the Returns section, but overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup with an output schema already covering return values, this is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is undefined error behavior for missing alias or invalid path.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines alias as 'the alias of the loaded document' and path as 'Dot/bracket notation path. Empty string means root.' Both parameters gain meaning absent from the bare schema, though it does not link alias to load_json origin.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the JSON type of the value at a given path,' and enumerates possible types. The purpose is distinct from siblings like get_value and get_keys, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the similar-sounding get_structure.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose and clarified slightly with 'Empty string means root,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., get_structure vs get_type). The agent must infer selection from sibling names alone.

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