get_signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes a read-only lookup but does not disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if member not found), authentication requirements, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise: a one-line purpose, a usage recommendation, and a well-structured args list. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it is efficient and free of fluff.

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 has 3 parameters and an output schema (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers the essential context: arguments, usage guidance, and scope (FQN examples). It lacks details on error states but is otherwise complete for a lookup tool.

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 schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description compensates by providing detailed explanations for all three parameters: 'name' (with examples), 'file_path' (optional path prefix), and 'include_tests' (default false). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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: 'Look up the exact signature of an API member by name or FQN.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_class' (likely for class definitions) and 'search' (general search).

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 usage context: 'Use when you need exact parameter types, return types, or method signatures without reading the full source file.' While it does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is clear and the sibling tools list helps.

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