Get Code Signature

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the tool inspects AST signatures, public methods, and docstrings, which is a read-only behavior. However, it doesn't mention whether the tool requires a specific environment, whether it can fail on missing symbols, or what the output structure looks like. The output schema exists, so return values are partially covered, but behavioral details like error handling are absent.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then names the two source locations. It is concise and efficient, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured by separating the locations, but it's well within acceptable limits.

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?

For a single-parameter inspection tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It names the source locations and what is inspected. However, it doesn't clarify how the tool handles symbols that exist in both locations, whether it searches both, or what happens if the symbol is not found. These are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'symbol' parameter with examples. The description adds the context that the symbol is a class or module name and ties it to the two source locations, but it doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema's examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('Python AST signatures, public methods, and docstrings') from two locations. It is clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_who_spec or search_documentation.

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 context by naming the source locations (custom_components/myhome or OWNd), which tells the agent when this tool is relevant. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_who_spec or search_documentation, nor does it mention exclusions.

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