get_method_il

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does little: it implies a read operation but never states safety, whether the assembly must first be loaded via load_assembly, how large the output might be, or how the raw IL is formatted. 'Raw IL bytecode' is the only hint about the return value, which is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 three-parameter lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves key gaps: how the IL is returned, whether the assembly must be loaded first, and how it differs from the decompile/disassemble siblings.

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 all three parameters (assembly, type_name, method_name) are already documented in the schema and the description adds no further semantics such as key format or name qualification rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (raw IL bytecode for a method), so the agent knows it returns IL rather than decompiled source. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like decompile_method, disassemble_function, or jar_search_bytecode, which an agent must infer on its own.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over decompile_method when it needs raw IL versus C#, nor what conditions (e.g., loaded assembly, patch workflow) make this the right call. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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