type_inspect

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'inspect', implying read-only, but does not confirm safety, permissions, or side effects. No mention of rate limits, auth needs, or what happens on missing types.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and avoids verbosity, though it could include a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

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 complex input schema (array/object, boolean, integer) and the rich sibling environment, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to query multiple types, the requirement for instance_id, or differentiate from similar inspection tools like 'type_query'.

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 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds context about what the tool returns (size, declaration, member layout), but does not explain the complex 'queries' structure (object vs array) or the effect of 'include_members' and 'max_members' beyond basic schema descriptions.

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 inspects named types and lists the attributes retrieved (size, declaration, optional member layout). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'declare_type' which creates types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs its siblings, such as 'type_query' or 'analyze_component'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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