Get type

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it details the return components (classification, sibling members, clause prose, SpecTec references, spec URL). This gives the agent a good understanding of what to expect without contradicting the read-only nature.

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 efficiently packs the core purpose, examples, and return types. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. It does not explain error behavior (e.g., if name is not found), but given the simplicity and good schema annotations, this is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples of accepted values for the 'name' parameter (e.g., 'i32', 'functype') and noting case-insensitivity, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 uses a specific verb 'look up' and clearly identifies the resource as 'WebAssembly type or type form by name'. It lists concrete value types and type forms, and specifies the outputs (classification, sibling members, defining clause prose, SpecTec references, spec URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on instructions, sections, or proposals.

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 states when to use the tool (to look up a type or type form) and what it returns. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparison with sibling tools such as instruction_get or spec_search. The context signals indicate siblings, but the description lacks 'when not to use' guidance.

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