Get Methods Of Class

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether inherited methods, constructors, or overloaded methods are included, whether method signatures or only simple names are returned, or what happens if the class is not found.

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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is appropriately sized for the purpose, though its terseness contributes to gaps in guidance.

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 is simple and has an output schema, but the description omits the class_name format and does not describe what 'method names' includes. With no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, these gaps are significant.

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 0% for the single required parameter. The description does not clarify whether class_name should be a fully qualified name, simple name, or something else, leaving a meaningful ambiguity for invocation.

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 ('List') and resource ('method names in a class'), making the operation clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_fields_of_class and get_class_source by focusing on method names, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or clarify scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_method_by_name, get_class_source, or get_smali_of_class. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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