describe_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it does state "This is read-only" and names the returned content, which are useful. However, it says nothing about authentication, behavior for unknown/uninstalled types, or error conditions.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The read-only note is appended efficiently rather than padding the opening.

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 one-parameter describe tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers what is returned and the safety profile. It falls short on parameter format and usage context, leaving gaps an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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% and the single required type_id has only a regex pattern, no textual description. The word "qualified" hints at a namespace/name form matching the pattern, but the description never explains the expected format or how to obtain a valid type_id.

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 gives a specific verb ("Describe") and resource ("one installed qualified schema type") and enumerates the output content (fields, body sections, generated JSON Schema). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_types (list vs. describe).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_types to enumerate types. The agent is left to infer that this is for retrieving detail on a single already-known type.

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