check_type_mapping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states the scan scope ('all files across all projects') and gives a concrete example of the return content. It doesn't explicitly say the tool is read-only, but the query nature implies no side effects.

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 with an embedded example, delivering the essential information without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds usage context.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and a representative result. It doesn't detail exact return formatting, but the example implies the nature of the result, which is adequate.

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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter 'typeName' with examples. The description adds a few additional examples in context, but does not significantly extend the parameter's meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: given a type name, find all files across all projects that define or reference it. This specific verb+resource (find files for type) distinguishes it from siblings like suggest_type_mappings or reverse_lookup by emphasizing impact analysis.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool 'BEFORE changing a type' and explains the benefit (knowing which files need updating). It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the situational guidance is clear and actionable.

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