analyze_type

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

The description transparently discloses that the tool combines multiple aspects of type analysis (info, members, hierarchy, usage, diagnostics) and requires load_project. Without annotations, it carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does so adequately, though it does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-destructive.

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 concise and well-structured, with a short introductory sentence, a bullet list of combined features, a usage recommendation, and a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value and there is no repetition or fluff.

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 provides a high-level overview of what the tool returns (type info, members, hierarchy, usage summary, diagnostics), which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities. No output schema is provided, but the description gives enough context for the tool's purpose.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add significantly to the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'analyze' and the resource 'type', and it provides a comprehensive list of what the tool combines (type info, members, hierarchy, usage, diagnostics). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by offering a single-call alternative to multiple separate tool calls.

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 recommends using this tool instead of multiple separate calls (get_type_members, get_type_hierarchy, get_type_usage_summary), providing clear context. It also states a prerequisite (load_project must be called first). No explicit exclusions are given, but the guidance is strong.

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