types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are paged and that each type is paired with its applied address, which is useful return-content context, but says nothing about ordering, error behavior, or rate limits.

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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the two exclusions following immediately. No filler.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and understand the shape of results (types plus applied addresses). Minor gap: no indication of default ordering or how 'applied' is formatted.

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 100%, so limit, offset, filter, and count_only are fully documented in the schema including defaults and max. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (user-defined types) plus the scope of results (where each is applied, paged). The exclusion clauses make it trivially distinguishable from set_type and annotations.

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 routes the agent: use set_type to define a type, use annotations for names and comments, use this tool to list. Both negative cases and their alternatives are named.

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