get_type_members

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

The description discloses the output format ('Lists of methods, fields, and nested types with their details') and mentions the options. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention any side effects (likely read-only) or performance characteristics, but it gives adequate behavioral context for a retrieval tool.

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, with a clear purpose sentence followed by structured sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, Options, requirement). It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words.

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 partially explains return values ('Lists... with their details') but omits specifics like what 'details' include (e.g., modifiers, parameters). The prerequisite is noted, but for a query tool with many siblings, additional guidance on when to use this versus alternatives would improve completeness.

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% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description restates the options (includeInherited, memberKind) but adds little new semantic meaning, such as clarifying defaults. Baseline 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 states 'Get all members (methods, fields, nested types) of a specific type.' This uses a specific verb (get) and resource (members of a type), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_type_hierarchy or get_type_at_position, which focus on different aspects.

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 instructions: 'Provide a type name to get all its members' and notes the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.' It also explains the options. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_type_hierarchy or analyze_type.

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