type_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior via 'Show' and explains the conceptual output, but it does not state that the type is located via the provided position, nor whether the hierarchy is direct or transitive. This leaves some behavioral details ambiguous.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and core definition, and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description conveys the core purpose but lacks contextual details such as how the input position is used, any language limitations, or the return format. With no output schema, these gaps are noticeable, though the tool itself is relatively simple.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only relates direction concepts to hierarchy meaning, without additional syntax or format guidance.

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 defines the tool's function: showing a type hierarchy with supertypes and subtypes, and it gives specific definitions (interfaces, embedded types). This distinguishes it from siblings like call_hierarchy and get_definition.

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 statement 'Useful for understanding inheritance and polymorphism' provides clear contextual guidance for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is well-communicated.

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