get_type_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's behavior as a read-only retrieval operation (getting an overview), which is implied. It does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, but the content suggests it. Adds value by listing what the overview includes.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and contents, the second provides a usage comparison. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does and its benefits. It could specify the output format more, but it is adequate for an agent to decide to use it.

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 100% for the single parameter 'typeName', which already explains it can be simple or fully qualified. The description does not add meaningful extra context beyond the schema, so a 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?

Clearly states the tool provides a comprehensive overview of a type, listing specific aspects like namespace, base class, interfaces, members, DI dependencies, type hierarchy, and diagnostics. This is a specific verb (get) and resource (type overview), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by combining multiple separate calls.

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?

Explicitly says it is more efficient than calling get_symbol_context + get_type_hierarchy + get_diagnostics separately, which tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives. Provides clear context for usage.

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