get_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the two modes, that endpoint mode follows internal $refs, and that transitive dependencies are included automatically. This is good behavioral transparency for a read-like tool, though it does not mention potential errors or output format.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose, second adds endpoint detail, third specifies parameter usage. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

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 complexity (two modes, four parameters, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, mode selection, dependency handling. It does not explain the return type explicitly, but the tool name suggests TypeScript declarations, so it is reasonably complete.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the exclusivity rule and mode semantics, which goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions. It helps the agent understand how to combine parameters.

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 generates TypeScript type declarations for schemas or for schemas used by an endpoint. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing from sibling tools like 'get_schema' or 'get_endpoint' which return different outputs.

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 explicitly tells the agent to provide exactly one of three parameter combinations: schemas, method+path, or operationId. It explains endpoint mode follows $refs and includes transitive dependencies. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough.

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