get_method_source

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Read'), which is accurate, but provides no details on error handling, missing methods, or permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially discloses behavior.

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 extremely concise at two sentences and 14 words. It front-loads the action ('Read a method body') and adds key features in the second sentence. No wasted words.

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 tool that reads method bodies, the description lacks details on return format, error behavior, and handling of ambiguous overloads. Given no output schema, more context would help an agent use it effectively. The current description is adequate but basic.

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 coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context about inner classes and overloaded methods but does not elaborate on specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Value added is marginal.

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 reads a method body from a class, distinguishing it from siblings like get_source. It also specifies support for inner class owners and overloaded methods, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 when to use it (e.g., for inner classes or overloaded methods) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_source for full class source. The guidance is minimal.

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