read_type

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the read is 'complete' (full enumeration) and limited to documented types; it says nothing about invalid type_name handling, case sensitivity, response size, or access requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded before the usage context. No filler, nothing that could be dropped without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus valid inputs. The remaining gap is failure behavior for an unrecognized type_name, which is minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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% and the single type_name property is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It partially does by enumerating example type names, but leaves format, casing, and how 'similar value sets' are discovered unspecified.

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+resource: reads complete enum keys and runtime string values for one documented type. The sibling set contains many 'read_*' tools (read_object, read_event, read_service), and the description's focus on enum value sets distinguishes it functionally, though it never names a sibling directly.

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?

Explicit context sentence names the concrete type families to use it for (ItemType, ProjectileType, SoundType, AbilityType, AbilityInputType) and extends to 'similar value sets'. Clear when-to-use, but no when-not or prerequisite guidance.

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