Search Methods Like

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

With readOnlyHint=true, annotations already communicate that this is a safe read operation. The description adds little beyond that; it doesn't disclose pattern semantics (substring vs wildcard vs regex), case sensitivity, match limits, or error behavior, which are important for a search 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though so minimal that it omits useful details; still, structural efficiency is high.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and read-only annotation, the description is partially adequate. However, the meaning of 'pattern' is unspecified, and there is no guidance on how to formulate method_name_query, leaving a notable gap that could lead to incorrect usage.

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 for method_name_query is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about pattern format or behavior, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Find methods matching a pattern' states a clear verb and resource, and the resource 'methods' distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_classes_like and search_traits_like. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast those alternatives, so it stops short of fully differentiating itself.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or which pattern syntax to use, so an agent must infer appropriate usage.

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