rz_types

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (tsj/tej/ttj/tuj endpoints) and hints the output is structured per category, but does not state whether the operation is side-effect-free, whether prior analysis is a prerequisite, or how it behaves on an unanalyzed binary. 'List' only implicitly conveys read-only behavior.

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?

Three tightly-written sentences with no filler: action plus mechanism, output contents, and comparison to the alternative. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return contents but omits prerequisites and error behavior, notably that a sibling analyze_types exists and analysis may need to run first. The mention of 'full member details' partially compensates for the missing output schema.

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 60% (limit and offset lack descriptions), shifting some burden to the description. The description adds meaning by mapping the category enum values to concrete output ('Returns structs, enums, typedefs, and unions'), reinforcing what category=structs produces. It does not clarify pagination semantics or the binary_path requirement 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 ('List type definitions from the binary') and enumerates exactly what is returned: structs, enums, typedefs, and unions with full member details. The closing comparison to r2's single flat list helps distinguish it from the generic r2_command sibling without opening any schema.

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 third sentence implies this tool should be preferred over raw r2 for type listing because it returns structured, separate typed JSON rather than a flat list. However, the alternative is referenced only as 'r2' rather than the actual sibling r2_command, and there is no explicit when-to-use condition, such as requiring prior analysis or when category filtering is appropriate.

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