Find Types

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing AST-based matching via ast-grep, PHP's lack of type aliases, wildcard support, and the fact that paths need no registration. It also documents defaults for exportedOnly, maxResults, and response_format. No statement conflicts with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by a well-organized argument list and concrete examples. Given the 7 optional parameters, the length is appropriate and every section serves a purpose. There is no generic filler or redundant boilerplate.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return-value details need not be repeated. The description covers all key dimensions: search targets, language filters, repo vs. ad-hoc path selection, export filtering, result limits, and response format. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 covers all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: wildcard patterns like '*Props', ad-hoc paths with no registration, and default values for optional fields. The examples map parameters to realistic calls. The only minor gap is not restating the 'ts'/'js' language aliases in prose, but those are already in the schema.

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 opens with a specific action: finding type aliases and interface definitions via AST analysis. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings such as find_classes and find_functions by targeting type/interface declarations. The scope is unmistakable due to language-specific details like PHP's lack of type aliases.

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 gives concrete invocation examples, including ad-hoc directory searches, wildcard patterns, and exported-only searches. This provides clear context for how to run the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when to prefer find_types over find_classes/find_functions, leaving some routing to inference.

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