dotnet_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the decompilation mechanism (ilspycmd) and the output language (C#), which is genuine context beyond the schema. It says nothing about failure behavior for unresolved type names, dependency/assembly resolution requirements, or whether the operation is purely read-only.

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 eleven-word sentence with the action, scope and output format front-loaded. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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 two-parameter decompiler with no annotations, no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent guessing on input formats and on what the returned payload looks like (raw C# source, file path, or snippet). It is enough to know roughly what the tool does but not enough to call it confidently.

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 0% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies whether "asm" is a file path, assembly simple name, or loaded module, nor whether "type_name" must be namespace-qualified, generic-notation, or nested-type formatted.

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 gives a specific verb ("Decompile"), a bounded resource ("one managed type"), a target language (C#) and the underlying tool (ilspycmd). The word "one" implicitly separates it from the plural sibling dotnet_types, though that sibling is never named, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus dotnet_types (presumably to enumerate types first) or versus ghidra_decompile for non-managed binaries. The singular scope is the only usage signal, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the type must exist in the assembly) are given.

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