typeHierarchy

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

The description reveals that the hierarchy is resolved from a cursor position rather than from the name, which is non-obvious and explains the purpose of the escape-hatch parameters. It also discloses the default direction and the superTypes switch. Annotations already cover read-only safety, and nothing contradicts them.

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?

Three sentences convey the purpose, primary inputs, escape-hatch mechanism, and direction switch without redundancy. Slightly awkward phrasing ('located in the source here') and a fragment first sentence keep it from a perfect score.

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 read-only tool with no required parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the core calling modes and direction semantics. It does not describe the output shape, but with no output schema and a self-descriptive purpose, the omission is minor.

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 grouping url/body/line/offset as escape-hatch parameters and clarifying that className/interfaceName are the primary lookup path, which helps the agent choose between parameter sets.

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's function: returning subclasses or superclasses of a class or interface. It identifies the primary inputs (className/interfaceName) and the hierarchy direction, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like classIncludes or sourceOutline.

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?

It gives practical usage guidance: pass a class or interface name, use superTypes to walk upwards, and rely on url/body/line/offset only as an escape hatch. It does not compare against alternative tools, but the usage context for this tool is clear.

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