analyze_type

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the tool's combined nature, output contents, and prerequisite. It implies read-only analysis but does not explicitly state safety or side effects, though the context strongly suggests idempotent behavior.

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?

Concise and well-structured: starts with a summary, then USAGE, OUTPUT, bullet list of features, usage recommendation, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

No output schema, but the description fully describes the output with a detailed bullet list. It covers inputs (via schema and example), outputs, behavior, prerequisite, and how it relates to sibling tools. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 100% coverage, so parameters are well-documented in schema. The description adds a usage example ('analyze_type(typeName="com.example.Foo")') that demonstrates the required parameter format, enhancing understanding beyond schema alone.

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 it performs 'comprehensive type analysis' and enumerates the combined outputs (type info, members, hierarchy, usage summary, diagnostics). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by advising to use this tool instead of multiple calls to get_type_members, get_type_hierarchy, and get_type_usage_summary.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this instead of multiple calls to get_type_members + get_type_hierarchy + get_type_usage_summary.' Also states a prerequisite: 'Requires load_project to be called first.'

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