get_types

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but fails to mention whether authentication is needed, any side effects, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no wasted words, achieving high conciseness. However, it is too brief to add significant value beyond the definition, preventing a score of 5.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description still lacks crucial context: no usage guidelines, no behavioral traits, and no explanation of return values. This incompleteness hinders an agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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% as the sole parameter 'brainId' has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'The ID of the brain'. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description does not exceed that baseline.

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 action ('Get all thought types') and the resource ('in a brain'). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_thought' (single thought) and 'get_tags' (tags as opposed to types). However, the description is slightly vague as 'thought types' could be ambiguous without further context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_thoughts' or 'get_tags'. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision context.

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