get_type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds the 'by id' scoping and an example, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as error handling, pagination, or the effect of the 'raw' parameter. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation, but no additional context is provided beyond the purpose.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and uses an example to convey format. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides the core context: fetching a single work type by id. However, it omits the 'raw' parameter behavior and any error-handling notes, which is a slight gap for a complete understanding.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for parameter documentation. It provides an example for type_id, which adds meaning, but it completely omits the 'raw' parameter. The description fails to explain what 'raw' controls, leaving the agent without guidance on half of the parameters.

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 tool fetches one work type by id, providing a specific verb (fetch), resource (work type), and scope (by id). The example 'journal-article' further clarifies the expected input. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_types and other get_* tools.

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 description implies usage when a single work type id is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_types or other getters. There are no exclusions or alternative references, so guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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