Search Method By Name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the search scope (all classes), which is useful, but says nothing about match semantics (exact vs. substring, case sensitivity), duplicate handling, result ordering, or performance implications of scanning every class.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification for a search tool rather than being optimally informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be explained, and only one parameter is present. Still, for a cross-class search tool the description leaves out match semantics and routing guidance that an agent needs to invoke it correctly versus get_method_by_name.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only restates the parameter as a 'method name' and does not clarify whether a simple name, fully qualified name, or partial string is 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search for a method name') and adds the scope 'across all classes,' which implicitly distinguishes it from get_method_by_name and get_methods_of_class. It does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify whether the search is exact or substring, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'across all classes' hints that this is the tool for when the owning class is unknown, versus get_method_by_name. There is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or which of the many siblings to prefer.

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