tmf_subtypes

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 meaningful traits: partial coverage, freshness not equating to correctness, source being authoritative, and degraded behavior when stale. However, it never states the return shape, whether results are ordered/limited, or what 'degrade to source' means operationally, and the phrasing is jargon-dense.

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 compact sentences with the main action and lookup keys front-loaded. The semicolon chain packs caveats efficiently, though the telegraphic style reduces readability slightly.

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 graph-query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify result structure, edge semantics, and ordering/limits. It covers coverage and freshness caveats but leaves the return shape and edge meaning to inference, so it is only partially complete.

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%, so the description must compensate: it does name all three parameters (claim_id, qualname, path), flags path as optional, and explains that ambiguous qualnames yield candidate matches. It still doesn't define the difference between claim_id and qualname or when each is preferred, so the compensation is partial.

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 verb+resource is specific: 'List known Java subtype/implementor edges' with the lookup keys (claim_id or qualname). It distinguishes itself from siblings like tmf_callers/tmf_readers by naming the edge kind, though it never explicitly contrasts the siblings.

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?

It hints that ambiguous names return candidates and that stale data should degrade to source, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the ten sibling tools. An agent must infer selection from the key names alone.

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