Get Method Source

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that. The description adds little extra behavioral context, such as whether a missing method produces an error or whether a loaded project is required, but since the annotations already cover the safety profile, a mid score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant clauses. However, it largely restates the tool's name and title without adding meaningful scoping or contextual detail, so while efficient, it is not an outstanding example of structural value.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool, the description plus full parameter schema, output schema, and readOnlyHint is mostly sufficient. The main missing elements are explicit usage guidance and a precise definition of class_name format, but these are minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document class_name, method_name, and is_class_method. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or how is_class_method affects behavior, so it does not go beyond the baseline set by the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('source code of a specific method in a class'), which makes the core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_class_source or list_methods, so some inference is still required, but the scoping to 'method' rather than 'class' is reasonably clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_class_source or list_methods, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of class-side versus instance-side method selection. The only implied usage is the generic purpose statement, which is not enough to guide an agent toward or away from this tool in context.

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