list_methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only states 'lists all methods' without clarifying whether inherited, private, or static methods are included, or what the return format is (e.g., names only or signatures). Lacks behavioral caveats such as error handling or output shape.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Lists all methods') and immediately specifies the context. No filler or redundant information.

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's relative simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention the return value shape (e.g., array of strings) or behavior when the class is not found. It's a moderate gap, not completely inadequate.

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?

Input schema has descriptions for both required parameters (path and type) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 lists all methods for a specific class in a TS/JS file. The verb 'lists' is specific, the resource 'methods' is precise, and the scope 'for a specific class' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_functions and list_declarations.

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 implies usage: when you need methods of a particular class in a file, provide the path and class name. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over list_functions or list_declarations, nor does it note any exclusions. There's a clear context but no alternative guidance.

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