callMethod

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes much further: it discloses that execution happens as the connected user, that changes are rolled back unless commit is set, and that the tool counts as a writing tool. This is critical behavioral context an agent needs, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then mechanics, then constraints, then the IMPORTANT caveat. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. It is longer than average but justified by the complexity of the operation.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (returning, exporting, changing parameters, and exception text). It covers rollback/commit behavior, static-only limitation, and read-only refusal. The remaining details (maxRows, dryRun, snippetClass) are sufficiently described in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; the note about 'values' referencing callFunction shapes is helpful but not essential. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Call a static method of a class with values and get what it returned, as data.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting static-only scope and pointing to runSnippet for instance methods. The mention that the signature is read from class source because classComponents lacks parameters adds useful context and separates it from related tools.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Static methods only: an instance method needs a constructor call, and runSnippet is the way to do that.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also warns that the tool is refused in read-only mode, clarifying when it cannot be used.

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