get_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 that it reports arguments, keywords, and null for unknowable constructors, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly rule out side effects or discuss error handling.

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 two sentences and fairly concise, but the phrase 'EVERY definition if the name is duplicated' is ambiguous and could be streamlined. Overall, it's not overly verbose.

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?

The tool has one required parameter that is not described in the schema or description. While the output schema likely covers return values, the input format and handling of duplicate names are left unclear. This makes the description incomplete for a simple but potentially ambiguous use case.

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%, and the description does not explain what class_name should be (e.g., fully qualified vs. simple name). The mention of duplicate definitions hints at disambiguation needs but does not clarify how to specify which class. This is a significant gap for a one-parameter tool.

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 explicitly states it returns a constructor contract (required arguments, accepted keywords, null for open-ended). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_usages or search_classes, which focus on other aspects.

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 explicitly says 'Call this before writing an instantiation,' giving clear timing guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.

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