peek_il

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

No annotations are provided, so burden is on description. It discloses it works on 'referenced closed-source assemblies', implying read-only behavior on external code. However, it doesn't mention return format, potential errors, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place. No extraneous information.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete. It explains input and purpose. An explanation of what 'ilasm-style IL' is might benefit less experienced users, but the assumed knowledge is reasonable for the domain.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for methodSymbol. The tool description goes beyond by providing an example format ('Newtonsoft.Json.JsonConvert.SerializeObject(object)'), which clarifies the exact syntax expected.

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 'ilasm-style IL for a single method in a referenced closed-source assembly'. The verb 'Return' and specific resource 'ilasm-style IL' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_method_source which returns source code.

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 implies usage (when you need IL for a method) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_method_source. It provides an input constraint (fully-qualified name) but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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