get_type_definitions

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

The description implies a read-only operation without explicit annotation, and explains the returned fields (parent, type_index, etc.). However, it does not state side effects, permissions, or that it is non-destructive, though the context strongly suggests safety.

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?

Very concise, front-loaded action sentence, followed by a brief comparison, then a clean bullet list for parameters. No wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description complements it by naming specific fields returned. It covers tool purpose, parameters, and distinguishes from siblings, making it fully complete for its 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: metadata_path is 'path to global-metadata.dat', namespace filter is 'only return typeDefs whose FQN starts with namespace + "."', and limit includes default. Adds critical meaning missing from the schema.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Walk' and specific resource 'binary typeDefinitions table', and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool list_classes by contrasting their data sources and outputs.

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?

Directly compares with list_classes, stating when to use each: 'Unlike list_classes...this reads the actual record array'. Provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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