get_udt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavior: it returns a UDT with its members, or all project-defined types when udt_name is empty. However, it does not mention failure modes, path resolution, or whether the operation is read-only in explicit terms.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and resource, and each sentence in the args section adds necessary semantic value. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter lookup tool with an output schema present, the description covers invocation semantics well. The main gap is routing guidance among sibling lookup tools, but the core call behavior is adequately specified.

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 compensate. It does add meaning to both parameters: path is a project file or directory, and udt_name is a type name whose empty value changes the result. This is sufficient but terse.

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 identifies the resource ('user-defined type definition') and includes 'with its members' plus the empty-name behavior. It is specific enough to distinguish from plural list-style siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_udts or get_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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over get_udts, get_type, or get_types. The empty-string behavior is a parameter detail, not a selection guideline.

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