analyze_type

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It explains the tool is a composite of multiple analyses and includes diagnostics. However, it does not disclose performance implications, error conditions, or whether it modifies state (likely read-only). Adequate but could add more behavioral context.

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?

Description is concise, well-structured with bullet points, and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains the composite nature and return contents. It provides sufficient context for an AI to understand the tool's scope, though could mention more about return structure or edge cases.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds that includeUsages defaults true and maxUsages defaults 10, but these are already in schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 lists exactly what it combines (type info, members, hierarchy, usage, diagnostics). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 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?

Explicitly says 'Use this instead of multiple calls to get_type_members + get_type_hierarchy + get_type_usage_summary' and mentions prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' This provides clear when-to-use and precondition guidance.

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