type.parse_declarations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the type database), required permissions, or error behavior. The description is too brief to convey any expected behavior.

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 concise sentence that gets to the point. It is front-loaded, with no fluff, but it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool. Still, for the little it says, it is well-structured.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, the return format, or any dependencies. For a parsing tool, this lacks critical context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 explain parameters. It does not mention any parameter specifics; however, the schema names imply meanings (e.g., session_id, declarations, include_dirs, import_dependencies, options). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the parameter names suggest, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Parse C declarations for types/variables/functions' uses a specific verb and resource, but it lacks detail on what the parsing entails or how it differs from type.parse_string. It is not a tautology, but it is generic and does not distinguish it from similar parsing 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like type.parse_string or type.define_user. The description implies it is for parsing declarations, but it does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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