loadTypes

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, permissions required, or whether the result is cached or dynamic. The description carries the full burden but provides minimal information.

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 extremely concise (two words), but it sacrifices context for brevity. It could benefit from a short phrase about return format or scope. However, no unnecessary words exist.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to specify what is returned, whether it lists types or loads specific ones, or how it relates to similar tools like 'objectTypes' and 'objectRegistrationInfo'.

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?

With 0 parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information because none exists. Baseline of 4 is appropriate since no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 'Loads object types' states a verb and resource, but it is tautological with the tool name and lacks specificity about what 'loading' entails (e.g., fetching a list of all object types?). The sibling 'objectTypes' suggests a similar purpose, but no differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'objectTypes'. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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