declare_c_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Create or update' but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., if it affects other analyses), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'local type' entails, how the tool behaves on success or failure, or what the user can expect after invocation. For a tool that modifies data in a technical context, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 the input schema already documents the single parameter 'c_declaration' with examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as syntax rules or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create or update') and resource ('a local type from a C declaration'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_local_variable_type' or 'get_defined_structures' by focusing on C declarations. However, it doesn't specify what 'local type' means in this context (e.g., in a decompiler or debugger), which prevents a perfect score.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for reverse engineering, debugging, or code analysis contexts, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'set_local_variable_type' or 'get_defined_structures'. The description lacks any 'when' or 'when not' instructions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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