analyze_type

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

With no annotations, description fully covers tool behavior: outputs five categories of analysis. Does not explicitly state read-only nature, but 'analysis' and the listed output categories imply non-destructive 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 with clear structure: brief intro, usage example, output list, combined components, recommendation, and prerequisite. No unnecessary sentences; all information earns its place.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description provides a high-level view of outputs and dependencies. Could improve by detailing output structure or error cases, but current description 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. Description adds beyond schema by mentioning default values for includeUsages (true) and maxUsages (10), and includes a usage example for typeName.

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 purpose: 'Comprehensive type analysis in a single call,' listing specific outputs (type info, members, hierarchy, usage summary, diagnostics) and differentiating from sibling tools like get_type_members and get_type_hierarchy.

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 example, recommends using this tool instead of multiple separate calls, and states prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). Does not explicitly list when not to use, but implies it's for combined analysis.

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