call_method

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the reflection mechanism and the args format with examples. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior, which would be important for a powerful reflection tool.

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 with three well-structured sentences: purpose, parameter explanation, and examples. No unnecessary 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 has an output schema (not detailed), the description need not explain return values. For a reflection tool with 3 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is quite complete, but still could provide better definitions for the required parameters.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides thorough explanation for the 'args' parameter (JSON array format with typed values), but for 'object_type' and 'method_name' it only offers examples, leaving their exact definition unclear.

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 it calls an arbitrary method via reflection for advanced debugging, with specific examples of common targets and methods, which distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like 'kill_all_enemy' or 'list_methods'.

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 explicitly marks this tool as 'for advanced debugging' and lists common targets, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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