dotnet_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that ilspycmd is the backend, which is mildly useful, but says nothing about read-only safety, ordering, the effect of the default limit of 5000, or what happens with an invalid assembly.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the efficiency comes at the cost of under-specification rather than careful pruning.

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?

A 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema leaves the description to do far more than it does. It should at least define the filter semantics and the limit's behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but barely does. 'optionally filtered' gestures at pattern but never says whether it is a regex/glob or what it matches, limit is never explained, and the required asm parameter's expected format (path vs name) is unstated.

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 types in a managed assembly') and names the mechanism (ilspycmd), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling dotnet_type, but the plural/singular split is inferable.

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 only guidance is the trailing 'optionally filtered,' which hints at the pattern parameter. Nothing says when to pick this over dotnet_type, when filtering is appropriate, or what prerequisite (a valid assembly path) is required.

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