roslyn:get_type_hierarchy

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially covers behavioral traits: it mentions the return format (baseTypes chain, derivedTypes list) and notes that results are truncated with a hint if the maxDerivedTypes limit is exceeded. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, performance implications, or error handling.

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 at two sentences plus a bolded note. It front-loads the purpose and provides critical context efficiently without wasted 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 the lack of output schema, the description briefly describes the return values but omits details about error cases (e.g., type not found, invalid file) and performance considerations. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by emphasizing the zero-based coordinate requirement and explaining the truncation behavior for maxDerivedTypes. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Get the inheritance hierarchy (base types and derived types) for a type.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_base_types and get_derived_types by combining both.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_base_types or get_derived_types. It does not specify prerequisites or exclusion criteria, only mentioning the zero-based coordinate requirement.

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