get_method_signature

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: what is returned (parameters, return type, deprecation status) and that overloads are disambiguated by including parameter types in the fqn. However, it says nothing about failure behavior for unknown or malformed names, ambiguity resolution, or caching/rate characteristics.

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 core purpose and usage condition are front-loaded in the first two lines, before the argument detail. The Args block is reasonably tight, though the trailing overload note sits awkwardly outside the fqn entry and the stripped-in example formatting adds some visual noise.

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?

With an output schema present, the return format need not be detailed, yet the description still names the three returned facets helpfully. The single required parameter is fully explained. Only edge-case behavior for unresolvable or overload-ambiguous names is missing, which is minor 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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single fqn parameter, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines the format, gives two concrete examples, and explains the non-obvious overload convention ('UnityEngine.Physics.Raycast(UnityEngine.Ray)'). It stops short of stating case sensitivity or whether partial/namespace-less names are accepted.

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: 'Look up the exact signature of a Unity API member by fully-qualified name.' The qualifier 'when you know the specific API' implicitly separates it from search_unity_api and get_class_reference, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('when you know the specific API (e.g. from autocomplete or docs reference)') and states what it is used to obtain (exact parameters, return type, deprecation status). No explicit when-not condition or named alternative, keeping it short of a 5.

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