roslyn:get_method_signature

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions output contents but does not disclose behavior for missing methods, invalid overload indices, or other edge cases. Minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's basic function.

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?

Two sentences: the first defines the output, the second shows usage. Extremely concise, front-loaded, and no wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description explains what is returned, but lacks details on output structure or error handling, which could be helpful given the complexity of method signatures.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by providing a concrete usage example that illustrates parameter ordering and the optional overloadIndex, aiding the agent beyond the schema alone.

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 gets a detailed method signature by name, including parameters, return type, nullability, and modifiers. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_method_source or get_method_overloads, though it does not explicitly highlight differences.

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 provides a usage example but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_method_source or change_signature. There is no explicit context for selection.

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