get_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It lists returned data categories but does not disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid type_id), authentication requirements, or response format. For a read-only lookup, this 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 a single sentence listing key details, which is efficient. However, it could be split into two sentences for readability, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 simple single-parameter tool and sibling tools that cover subsets, the description provides sufficient information about what the tool returns. It lacks details on authentication or potential errors, but for a basic lookup, completeness is good.

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% with one parameter (type_id) described as 'The typeID to look up'. The tool description adds 'by ID' but does not provide additional context beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 full details for an Eve Online type by ID, listing specific data categories (dogma attributes, effects, traits, meta info). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_type_attributes and get_type_effects, which focus on subsets.

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 implies usage when full type details are needed and provides a clear action ('Get full details... by ID'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like get_type_attributes or get_type_effects, and does not mention prerequisites or context.

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