type_explain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It leads with 'Read-only', explains that roles are graph-derived, and discloses pagination behavior for fields versus methods. It does not cover error behavior or missing-type handling, but the key safety and data-source traits are present.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct value: safety, what is returned, when to use it, and how to paginate. There is no filler or redundant repetition of parameter names beyond what adds clarity.

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 query tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, this description covers purpose, usage timing, read-only behavior, and pagination mechanics. It could be more explicit about return shape details, but the content list in the first sentence provides enough orientation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by associating offset with field pagination and member_offset with method pagination, which the schema does not state. This clarifies how the two offset parameters differ.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Explain a type from graph facts' and enumerates the exact content: fields plus methods that construct, mutate, consume, or destroy it with graph-derived roles. This clearly distinguishes it from call-site-oriented siblings like callers/callees by focusing on the type's shape and handling.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'to learn a struct/class's shape and how it is handled before reading call sites', giving a clear contextual trigger. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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