reflection-method-find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It accurately conveys the search behavior (looking across all assemblies, finding by name/class/parameters) and the availability of private methods. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but as a read-only find operation, this is acceptable and truthful.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences that immediately state the purpose, then list capabilities, and finally direct to the related tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description is sufficient for a simple find tool but lacks details about the return value (no output schema) and the structure of the nested 'filter' parameter. It assumes the user understands the schema. Given the complexity (nested object, 5 parameters), the description could provide more context on how to use the filter effectively.

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% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It only briefly mentions filter parameters in the main text, but the schema already explains the match levels and defaults. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding a method using C# Reflection. It specifies the resources (methods in assemblies) and the action (find by name, class, parameters). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'reflection-method-call' by mentioning it as the follow-up step.

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 provides clear context for usage: to find a method, and explicitly notes that private methods are accessible. It directs to use 'reflection-method-call' afterward. However, it does not elaborate on when not to use it or alternative approaches, though no other search tools are siblings.

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