syntaxCheckTypes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify return format, whether it returns a list or a single item, error behavior, or any special side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 that is immediately clear and front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning every word.

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 (zero parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides a minimal but understandable purpose. However, it lacks detail about what 'syntax check types' actually are or what the return payload looks like, which could leave an agent uncertain without additional context.

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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter details because there are none. It adds nothing contradictory and the resource name 'syntax check types' gives some context.

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 'Retrieves syntax check types' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like syntaxCheckCode and syntaxCheckCdsUrl by referring to 'types' rather than code or CDS URL checks, but it does not explicitly separate itself from those related tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different syntax-related tool would be more appropriate.

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