list_methods

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides a key limitation: inherited members are only resolved for base classes defined in the same file, and bases from other modules are reported as unresolved. It also clearly enumerates the returned member categories, which goes beyond what the minimal schema offers.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes only necessary details: the enumerated member types, the inheritance limitation, and parameter guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and a notable behavioral limitation. However, it omits error handling details (e.g., file not found, invalid class name), but for a read-only query with two simple parameters, the description is largely complete.

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%, so the parameter descriptions in the Args section are essential. They add meaning beyond schema titles by specifying that 'path' is a path to a .py file and 'type' is a class name. This adequately covers both required parameters, though it could clarify whether the class name must be fully qualified.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: "List every method of a class" and enumerates exactly what is included (declared, inherited, properties, class/static methods, class-level attributes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_functions or list_declarations by focusing on class members.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description implies usage via the required path and type arguments, but it does not provide exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools such as list_functions or get_type_definition.

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