roslyn:get_type_members

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the operation as reading members and mentions verbosity control, but lacks details on constraints (e.g., ambiguous names, performance, error handling) and assumes a read-only behavior without explicit statement.

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 first-line purpose, followed by well-organized usage patterns and a note on name forms. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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 an output schema, the description covers usage patterns and parameter behavior well, but does not explain the return structure or clarify that maxResults limits output, which could be confusing when stating 'Get all members'.

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 explaining name forms (fully-qualified, simple, partial) and illustrating verbosity levels with examples, which goes beyond the schema 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 'Get all members (methods, properties, fields, events) of a type BY NAME.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_type_members_batch and get_method_signature, providing a specific verb+resource.

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?

Usage patterns are given (basic, with inheritance, filter by kind, verbosity control) and the tool works with fully-qualified, simple, or partial names. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among siblings.

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