get_class_methods_by_class_full_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves methods but doesn't describe what happens if the class doesn't exist, if there are access restrictions, rate limits, or the format of the returned list. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return annotations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics but misses behavioral details and return value specifics. This leaves gaps for the agent to infer behavior, making it incomplete for optimal use.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: '@param class_full_name: The fully qualified name of the class.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only provides a title and type), this compensates well by explaining what the parameter represents. However, it doesn't detail format examples or constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the methods of a class by its fully qualified name.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('methods of a class'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_method_code_by_class_full_name_and_method_name' or 'get_method_by_call_id', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether the class must be loaded or if there are limitations on class types. This leaves the agent without usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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