get_type_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that the tool returns lists of members with details and mentions options. However, it does not discuss side effects, performance implications, or whether the tool modifies state. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 for USAGE, OUTPUT, and Options. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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 covers the main functionality, includes a prerequisite, and summarizes output. However, it lacks details about the output format (what 'details' are included) and could mention whether the response is paginated or has size limits. Overall, it is fairly complete for a query tool.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effects of 'includeInherited' and 'memberKind' options and reiterating the prerequisite, providing context beyond the schema.

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 retrieves members (methods, fields, nested types) of a specific type. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('members of a specific type'), and the purpose is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'analyze_type'.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first') and describes options. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_type' or 'get_type_hierarchy', nor does it give guidance on when not to use it.

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