roslyn:get_derived_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns all types inheriting by name, with transitive inclusion by default (controlled by includeTransitive). However, it lacks details on error behavior, performance implications, or handling of edge cases like non-existent base types. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a USAGE section with two examples. No superfluous words. The structure front-loads the key action and then provides immediate, practical examples. Every sentence is earned.

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 the tool's simplicity (find derived types by name), the description covers the essential behavior and usage. It mentions the key parameter includeTransitive with default. However, it omits any mention of the maxResults parameter or what happens if no types are found. With no output schema, a brief note on return format would improve completeness, but it remains largely 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing usage examples: e.g., includeTransitive=false to get direct children only, clarifying the default behavior (true). This goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions, particularly for includeTransitive, and provides context for usage. maxResults is not mentioned, but the schema covers it.

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 'Find all types inheriting from a base type BY NAME.' It specifies the verb (Find) and resource (types inheriting from a base type), differentiating itself from siblings like get_base_types which do the reverse. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct.

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 USAGE section provides concrete examples showing how to call the tool with and without the includeTransitive parameter. This gives practical guidance on parameter use. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like get_type_hierarchy or specify when to choose this tool over alternatives, which would elevate the score.

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