get_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds context about the arrays being referenced by index. However, it does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it disclose any edge-case behaviors or return format details. It is minimally sufficient for a simple read tool.

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 that clearly states the action and then elaborates with a dash-separated explanation. No wasted words; every phrase 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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, enum-based, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose, the valid categories, and the significance of the data (index references). It does not specify the return array's element types or formatting, but for this simple getter it is likely sufficient.

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 schema already documents the parameter with an enum and description. The tool description adds meaning by explaining that these categories are 'the named lists other data references by index' and that each is a separate array ('one ... array'). This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Which type-name array to read'.

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 starts with 'Get one System.json type-name array' — a specific verb and resource. It enumerates all valid categories (elements, skillTypes, weaponTypes, armorTypes, equipTypes) and explains that these are named lists other data references by index, clearly distinguishing it from broader tools like get_system or set_type_name.

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 implies the usage context: when you need a specific type-name array that other data references by index. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like get_system or set_type_name, nor provide when-not-to-use conditions. It still gives clear context, so no exclusions are present.

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