analyze_types

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly communicates a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description adds no detail about output shape, ordering, filtering behavior, or pagination implications beyond what the schema already exposes.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action, resource, and examples without filler. Every word earns its place, and the key scope terms 'structs, enums, and typedefs' appear immediately.

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?

This is a fairly simple listing tool, and the schema documents all parameters, making the description mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify the returned structure or behavior, nor does it provide guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as how 'filter' interacts with type names or how pagination relates to the listing.

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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'List type definitions from binary analysis' and explicitly enumerates structs, enums, and typedefs. It is specific enough to convey what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'rz_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 intended use is implied by the description: an agent would invoke this when it needs type definitions from a binary. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions or context clues are given.

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