roslyn:get_type_overview

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'type info, base types (first 3), and member counts' but does not elaborate on what 'type info' includes (e.g., namespace, visibility, location). It also does not mention any side effects (none expected) or authentication requirements. Adequate but lacks detail.

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: two sentences total, with the key information front-loaded. The example is embedded in a code block. No fluff or unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a reasonable summary of outputs: type info, base types (first 3), member counts. It covers the main purpose. Minor gap: not specifying if 'type info' includes namespace or modifiers, but overall complete for a quick overview 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 covers the single parameter 'typeName' with description 'Type name' (100% coverage). The description adds an example usage 'get_type_overview("MyService")' but no additional semantics like case sensitivity or format requirements. Baseline 3 since schema already defines the parameter well.

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 the purpose: 'Get comprehensive type overview in ONE CALL: type info + base types (first 3) + member counts.' It clearly specifies the resource ('type overview') and the verb ('Get'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_type_hierarchy or get_base_types by combining multiple aspects in a single call. However, 'type info' is somewhat vague, missing a detailed breakdown.

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 an example usage: 'get_type_overview("MyService")' and implies it's for quick understanding. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus more specialized siblings (e.g., get_type_hierarchy for deep hierarchy, get_type_members for members list). No when-not-to-use or alternatives mentioned.

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