get_node_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a 'Dictionary of node types and descriptions', which gives some output context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by concise 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. Without an output schema, it hints at the return format but doesn't fully explain the dictionary structure, leaving some gaps.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'language: Language name'. Since the schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title 'Language' and type 'string'), the description compensates by specifying the parameter's role in fetching node types for that language. This is sufficient for the one parameter, earning a high score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get descriptions of common node types for a language.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('descriptions of common node types'), and scope ('for a language'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ast' or 'get_symbols', which might also relate to language analysis, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. It mentions the 'language' parameter but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this should be used before or after tools like 'get_ast' or 'analyze_project', leaving usage unclear.

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