get_type_entries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the filtering behavior and provides usage examples, which adds context. However, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination (though limit parameter exists), error conditions, or what happens when no matches are found.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, provides a usage prerequisite, then gives concrete examples - each sentence earns its place. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 filtering tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides good context about purpose, prerequisites, and usage examples. However, it doesn't describe the return format or structure of results, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema. The examples partially compensate for this gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of parameter usage (e.g., 'tech="python~3.10", entry_type="class"'), but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('obtiene'/'gets') and resource ('entradas filtradas por tipo'/'entries filtered by type'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning the specific filtering capability. It provides concrete examples that illustrate the exact functionality.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('para ver los tipos disponibles'/'to see available types') and provides a clear prerequisite: 'Primero usa get_documentation_index' ('First use get_documentation_index'). This gives specific guidance on the proper sequence of operations.

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