rsc_describe_type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the exact return shape: name, kind, and a kind-dependent payload (fields dict for objects/inputs/interfaces, values list for enums, types list for unions). That is real information an agent needs to interpret results.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns block is well structured and scannable. The Returns stanza is slightly verbose with its three sub-cases, but each sub-case carries distinct information rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating the possible payload shapes per type kind. Combined with read-only annotations, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool; only sibling routing guidance is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone does not explain the single 'name' parameter. The description compensates by labeling it 'Type name' and supplying concrete examples ("CreateGlobalSlaInput", "SlaAssignTypeEnum") that clarify the expected format and the object-vs-enum distinction.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the definition of a GraphQL type used in RSC operations.' An agent can immediately tell this is a schema-introspection lookup rather than a search or an operation executor. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling rsc_search_schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 the use case (call it with a type name when you need that type's definition), and the parameter example hints at RSC-specific type names. However it never states when to prefer this over rsc_search_schema or rsc_describe_operation_full, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving routing to inference.

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