list_methods

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the tool uses reflection to list methods, implying a read-only and potentially dynamic operation. While it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, the action 'list' combined with 'reflection' strongly suggests no side effects. This provides adequate transparency for a listing 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 a single sentence of 10 words, which is extremely concise. It front-loads the action and key details without any redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists) and the context of sibling tools, the description provides enough for basic understanding. However, it lacks guidance on what 'game object type' means or whether there are common pitfalls (e.g., case sensitivity). Still, for a straightforward listing tool, it is nearly 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the single parameter 'object_type' beyond implying it is a game object type. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning (e.g., valid values, format, or examples). This is insufficient for an agent to reliably construct correct input.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'public methods on a game object type', and mentions the method 'via reflection'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'call_method' which invokes methods, and 'get_game_data_item' which retrieves data items.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an object type, or that it is intended for discovery before using 'call_method'. The description leaves usage context entirely implicit.

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