get_inheritance_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Get" implies a safe read, but nothing is said about depth limits, whether the tree is transitive or direct-only, cycle handling for recursive types, or whether the assembly must be loaded beforehand.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then disambiguates the scope in parentheses. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the resource and the two directions traversed. It omits prerequisite state (loaded assembly), result shape, and relationship to the near-duplicate get_class_hierarchy sibling.

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% and both required parameters (assembly, type_name) are already documented in the schema. The description's "full type name" phrasing loosely echoes type_name but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get full inheritance tree for a type") and clarifies the scope with "(ancestors and descendants)", which is more precise than the sibling get_class_hierarchy. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from that sibling or from inspect_type, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_class_hierarchy, inspect_type, or list_types, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., assembly must be loaded first). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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