get_type_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the output (lists of methods, fields, nested types with details) and options. However, it does not specify behavior on missing types, ambiguous names, or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, Options). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the necessary information.

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 no output schema, the description explains that output includes lists of members with details. It covers the prerequisite and options. It could be more specific about the details returned, but it handles the core completeness adequately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema: it expands on includeInherited ('include members from superclasses/interfaces') and memberKind ('Filter to method, field, or type only'), which clarifies usage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all members of a specific type'), clearly indicating it returns methods, fields, and nested types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_type or find_references.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Provide a type name to get all its members' and a key prerequisite: 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient.

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