get_operators

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses all behavioral traits: what is returned (operator kind, signature, parameters, return type, etc.), inclusion of compiler-synthesized operators, source vs. metadata, sort order, and the non-inheritance rule. No contradictions.

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 relatively long but front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though some details (e.g., sort order) could be more concise. Still, it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the single parameter and lack of output schema, the description provides a comprehensive understanding of what the tool returns and its constraints. An agent can accurately select and invoke this tool based solely on the provided text.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'symbol' described. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: 'Pass a type name, simple or fully qualified (e.g. 'Vector2', 'MyApp.Money', 'System.Decimal').' This helps the agent construct valid input.

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 specifies a unique verb-resource pair: 'Return every user-defined operator and conversion operator on a type'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_type_overview, find_references) by focusing exclusively on operators.

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 explains how to invoke the tool (pass a type name, simple or fully qualified) and notes that operators do not inherit, so returned operators are declared only. It does not explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear given the tool's specialized nature.

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