get_type_hierarchy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only' and describes the return JSON structure. It provides behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing the output format, but does not mention performance 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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence explains function, second gives usage guidance, third states read-only and return format. Every sentence is necessary and well-placed.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description includes the exact return format (JSON with name, ancestors, descendants). For a 2-parameter tool with comprehensive annotations, this is fully complete. The description covers purpose, usage, and output, leaving no gaps.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'name' and 'max_depth'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 walks TypeScript class/interface hierarchy, listing ancestors and descendants. It uses specific verbs ('walk') and resource ('class/interface hierarchy'). It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_implementations', which provides a flat list only.

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 says "Use to understand inheritance trees" and directs to use 'get_implementations' for a flat list. This provides clear context and an alternative. However, it could further specify when not to use (e.g., for single-level dependency checks) or list other sibling tools that might be relevant.

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