get_method_code_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states what the tool does but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what 'code' means (source code, bytecode, etc.), whether this is a read-only operation, error handling, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 brief and structured with parameter annotations, but it's inefficiently front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, but the subsequent @param lines are misleading given the actual schema. While concise, the structure doesn't effectively communicate the tool's true requirements due to the parameter mismatch.

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 complexity (1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It fails to accurately document the single required parameter ('method_id'), doesn't explain the return value beyond a vague 'List of...', and omits behavioral context. For a tool with minimal structured data, the description should do more to compensate but instead adds confusion.

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 lists parameters '@param class_full_name' and '@param method_name' with brief explanations, but the input schema requires only 'method_id' as a single parameter. This creates a direct contradiction: the description documents two parameters that don't exist in the schema, while the schema's one parameter ('method_id') is not mentioned at all in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate and instead misleads.

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 states 'Get the code of a method by its class full name and method name' which provides a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('code of a method'), but it's vague about the exact mechanism. The title is null, so the description carries the full burden. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_method_code_by_class_full_name_and_method_name' or 'get_method_code_by_full_name', which appear to serve similar purposes.

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. With multiple sibling tools that seem related to retrieving method information (e.g., 'get_method_code_by_class_full_name_and_method_name', 'get_method_code_by_full_name'), there's no indication of which tool to choose in different scenarios. The lack of context or prerequisites leaves the agent without usage direction.

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