get_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that type_name is exact, that empty type_name returns types matching search, and that search is case-insensitive. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'Get' strongly implies it, and the conditional behavior is well documented.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clearly structured Args block. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or repetition of schema field names without added meaning.

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 read-style lookup with three parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary calling semantics. It explains parameter defaults, behavior when type_name is empty, and routes to the relevant sibling tool when appropriate.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: path is defined as 'Project file or directory,' type_name is 'Exact type name' with empty behavior, and search is a 'Case-insensitive substring filter' used only when type_name is empty.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a type definition with its members.' It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling get_fb_signature by stating when that tool should be chosen instead, making the purpose immediately recognizable.

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 explicitly names get_fb_signature as the alternative for function-block pin tables in a calling-oriented form, giving the agent clear routing guidance. It also explains the interaction between path, type_name, and search, which defines the tool's calling conditions.

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