get_type_summary

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses public-only members, includes signatures, lists exceptions (DllNotFoundError, TypeNotFoundError), and describes return type. Could mention caching or performance, but not required for this static tool.

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?

Well-structured with summary, example, Args, Returns, Raises. Front-loaded with purpose. No fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is complete: covers tool purpose, parameter details, return type, errors, and usage context. Output schema exists but description still provides useful summary.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds full semantics: dll is absolute path, type_name is fully-qualified case-sensitive, asm_paths is extra dependency dirs (almost never needed). This adds significant meaning.

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 it gets a detailed member summary of a single type (public members only), lists what it returns (methods, fields, properties, events), and provides an example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like decompile_member and decompile_type.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool to find exact member names before calling decompile_member. Provides an example and notes that asm_paths is almost never needed, with alternative tools listed in siblings.

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