Search Implementors

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get all' aligns with that. The description adds no further behavioral details such as whether the match is exact, how results are ordered, or whether inherited/overridden methods are included, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core resource and action are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is the lack of explicit guidance on the expected format of the method selector (e.g., exact spelling, colons) and how 'implementors' is defined regarding inheritance, but the output schema and annotation help cover the rest.

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 already fully documents the single required parameter method_name with 100% coverage. The description adds only the term 'method selector', which is a useful synonym but does not significantly expand on the schema's 'method name to find implementors for'.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('all implementors of a method selector'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like search_methods_like or search_references. Even without naming alternatives, the concept of 'implementors' unambiguously identifies this tool's role.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and description: an agent should call this when it needs all implementors of a method selector. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_methods_like or other related search tools, nor does it exclude fuzzy/substring matching scenarios.

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