get_method_source

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains per-item statuses and order preservation, adequate for a read operation. However, it does not mention safety, side effects, or any authentication requirements. Lacks explicit statement of read-only nature.

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?

Description is dense but efficient; every sentence adds information. While not overly long, it could benefit from bullet points for readability. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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, description covers input formats, statuses, and references to sibling tools for edge cases. Minor omission: does not state that a solution must be active/loaded, but this is likely inferred from tool context.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds significant value: explains symbol patterns (simple/qualified), constructor request format, indexer syntax, and batch usage. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 it returns full declaration source for named members, listing specific types (methods, constructors, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by mentioning alternatives for certain statuses (e.g., get_type_overview for whole types), but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on how to request different member kinds (constructors, indexers) and batch usage. It also gives actionable alternatives for specific statuses (metadata -> peek_il or inspect_external_assembly; unsupportedKind -> get_type_overview). Missing explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.

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