get_type_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral constraint: the project must have been built for these files to exist. That is useful context an agent could not derive from the schema. It stops short of saying what the response looks like (raw file contents vs. a summary) or what happens if the files are absent.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the build precondition placed at the end where it reads naturally. Every clause 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?

For a no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is nearly complete but leaves the return shape ambiguous — an agent cannot tell whether it receives file contents, a file listing, or parsed type metadata. Adding one clause about the response would close the remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. The file enumeration it does provide is incidental context rather than parameter documentation.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('generated Nuxt type information'), and even enumerates the concrete artifacts (.nuxt/imports.d.ts, .nuxt/types files, nuxt.schema.json). This separates it reasonably well from siblings like check_type_errors or get_auto_imports, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 trailing clause 'when the project has been built' is a genuine precondition and tells the agent when this tool is applicable. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer it over check_type_errors (type errors) or get_auto_imports (import lists), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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