node_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the @types/* fallback and the two distinct return shapes (declarations with JSDoc and file:line vs. version plus exported names). Still missing: read-only confirmation, error behavior when a package is not installed, and any size/truncation limits.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then branching cleanly on the optional symbol parameter. No filler text.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does describe both return shapes reasonably. It falls short on project_dir and on failure modes for a 3-parameter tool, but the essentials needed to call it are present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It defines the symbol parameter's effect well and implies that package refers to an installed package, but project_dir is completely unexplained and its purpose (monorepo root? alternate install dir?) is left to guesswork.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading TypeScript declarations of a package installed in node_modules, with the @types fallback named. It is clearly different from py_* siblings and from node_versions, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 with/without-symbol branches imply what each mode is for, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to node_versions or py_inspect. The agent must infer the choice.

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