Describe a document type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by enumerating what the tool returns: fields, subtypes, system fields, containment, permission requirements, generic-access behavior, and specialized tools.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the core action ('List... or describe one'). The first sentence is a long, dense enumeration of outputs, but it is information-rich and not padded with unnecessary filler.

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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description fully enumerates what the agent can expect to learn: fields, subtypes, system fields, containment, permission levels, generic-access behavior, and specialized tools. It also tells the agent when to invoke it, making the call context complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions for depth, subtype, and documentType. The description adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that document types can be listed or described, so the schema carries the semantic burden and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool as a read-only introspection tool for Foundry document types, using verbs like 'List the document types' and 'describe one' with a detailed resource scope. It distinguishes itself from document-instance tools like list-documents/get-document by focusing on Foundry's data model and type metadata.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to call the tool: 'Call it before creating or changing a type through generic access for the first time.' It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternative tools for non-type document operations.

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