edb_ptype

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing what type information is returned (complete type definition, struct members, function signatures), enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured with a brief purpose statement, equivalent command reference, and clear Args/Returns sections. Slight redundancy in Args due to schema duplication, but overall efficient.

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 simple read-only query tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the return type and gives examples, making it complete for an AI agent to understand usage.

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?

The only parameter, expression, is described in the schema with examples. The tool description's Args section largely repeats this information, adding minimal new semantic value. With schema description coverage stated as 0% (though the schema includes a description), the extra examples in the description provide some benefit.

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 prints the type of a variable, function, or expression, and compares it to GDB's ptype command, making the purpose unambiguous. It also specifies that it shows complete type definitions including struct/class members, distinguishing it from simpler type queries.

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 for inspecting type definitions but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edb_whatis or other context. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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