get_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It states the tool returns documentation but does not disclose behaviors like error handling for invalid type names, or that the output includes a full type definition. The description is adequate for a straightforward lookup but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 8 words. Every word adds value, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not mention any prerequisites, error conditions, or the scope of 'full documentation', which could be relevant for an agent deciding between this and related tools.

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. However, it adds no meaning beyond the schema field types and defaults. The description does not clarify what 'name' refers to (e.g., type name format or case sensitivity) or what 'include_related_methods' entails, failing to add value.

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 states it returns 'full documentation for a Telegram Bot API type', using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_field (for fields) and get_method (for methods).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_field, get_method, or get_related_types. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, lacking explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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