get_method_callees

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 describes the basic operation ('retrieves a list') and return format, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or data freshness. For a tool with no annotations, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The @param and @return annotations are concise and informative, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the annotations more seamlessly into the main text.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. Without an output schema, it helpfully describes the return value, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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 substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the parameter 'method_full_name' with a clear definition and an example (e.g., 'com.android.nfc.NfcService$6.onReceive:void(android.content.Context,android.content.Intent)'), providing essential context that the schema alone does not offer.

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: 'Retrieves a list of methods info that are called by the specified method.' It includes a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('methods info'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_method_callers' or 'get_calls_in_method_by_method_full_name', which likely have related but distinct functions.

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 does not mention sibling tools such as 'get_method_callers' (which might retrieve callers instead of callees) or 'get_calls_in_method_by_method_full_name' (which could be similar), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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