syntaxCheckTypes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the retrieval entails (e.g., list, details). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'syntax check types' are, how they're used, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient information to understand the tool's role among siblings like 'syntaxCheckCode'.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is unnecessary here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as no parameters exist, and the schema adequately covers this.

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 'Retrieves syntax check types' restates the tool name 'syntaxCheckTypes' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Retrieves') and a resource ('syntax check types'), but lacks detail on what syntax check types are or how they differ from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl', leaving the purpose vague.

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. With sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' and 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' that perform syntax checks, the description fails to explain if this tool is for listing types, configuring checks, or another purpose, offering no context for selection.

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