get_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it adds a meaningful source constraint by stating that Yaskawa motion-library types are only present 'when the PLCopen XML export is present, which it is the only source that carries.' The word 'List' implies read-only behavior, and filter semantics are disclosed, though it does not address failure/edge cases.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then one contextual sentence, then a tight Args list. It is efficient and well structured, though the Yaskawa type-name examples add a little length that could be trimmed without losing the core message.

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 4-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers project scope, source availability, and all filter mechanics. It is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly, but it leaves the relationship to sibling type/library tools implicit.

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%, but the Args block defines every parameter beyond the schema: path as project file/directory, search as case-insensitive substring, kind with its allowed values, and limit as the maximum return count. This fully compensates for the schema's bare properties/defaults.

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 opening 'List data types, structs and function blocks available in the project' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly covers a plural, project-scoped inventory, which separates it from singular get_type/get_udt, though it does not explicitly name these siblings.

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 phrase 'This is the vocabulary an agent must code against' gives a clear reason to use the tool when selecting type names, and the filters in Args show how to narrow results. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to overlapping siblings such as get_udts, list_library_blocks, or list_fb_catalog.

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