get_type_hierarchy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the bidirectional nature of the hierarchy (extends/implements and who extends/implements it), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential edge cases, error handling, or whether the hierarchy is transitive, leaving 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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Hierarchy of a type') and expands on it with the bidirectional detail. It contains no filler, fluff, or repetitive information, making it an excellent example of concise writing.

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 (two scalar params, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality but leaves out some contextual details that would help an agent: it doesn't explicitly state that a project must be loaded (though the schema hints at it), nor what happens if the type is not found. With no output schema, a bit more explanation of the returned structure would improve the completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters ('name' and 'type_name') are adequately described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so no extra credit is warranted.

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 the tool provides a type's hierarchy, specifically what it extends/implements and who extends/implements it. This is a specific verb+resource with bidirectional scope, distinguishing it from simple type listing or single-direction reference tools. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'resolve_type', but the focus on hierarchy is unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., a loaded project) or contrast with similar tools like 'find_references' or 'resolve_type'. The context is only implied by the tool's name and schema.

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