lookup_request_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only implies a read operation with 'Get' but does not disclose idempotency, safety, required permissions, or behavior when projectId is omitted (e.g., returns all types?). No additional behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, followed by a concise condition. All information is pertinent.

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 parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return structure, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a lookup tool, basic completeness would include stating that it returns a list of type names or identifiers.

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 has one optional parameter (projectId) with 0% description coverage. The description adds 'optionally filtered by project,' clarifying that projectId is a filter. This adds meaning beyond the schema but does not specify parameter format or constraints.

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 states 'Get request types, optionally filtered by project.' This clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (request types), and distinguishes it from sibling lookup tools like lookup_priorities or lookup_statuses. However, it does not elaborate on what request types are, which could be ambiguous.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, expected context (e.g., before creating a request), or when to avoid using it. Sibling tools are not referenced.

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