describe_type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is clear. Description adds behavioral details about what the tool returns (fields, args, interfaces, etc.), which goes beyond what schema/annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and well-structured. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple read-only tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage hints, and scope. Could mention output format or errors, but overall adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds value by providing concrete examples for the type_name parameter (e.g., 'User', 'CreateUserInput', root types) and implying the include_deprecated parameter's effect, making it more actionable.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves full details of a single GraphQL type, listing fields, input fields, interfaces, enum values, and possible types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_types' and 'describe_field' by focusing on a single type's comprehensive shape.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to understand a type's shape before constructing a query' and provides examples of acceptable type names (root, input, scalar). Does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but context is clear enough.

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