get_class_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns signatures, a useful behavioral detail, but does not go beyond that. Since annotations carry the main load, this is adequate.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the action and result in one sentence. The bilingual repetition (Chinese and English) is redundant but not harmful; it adds no new information for an agent but is a common localization pattern.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core behavior (listing methods with signatures) adequately. It does not mention prerequisites like class existence, but that is likely implied and not critical for a read operation.

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 schema has 100% coverage for className, fully describing it as the class name. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists the methods/functions available on a class with their signatures, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_class_properties (properties) and list_max_classes (class listing) without confusion.

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 implies usage—when you need to know what methods a class provides—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusions. The purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer, but no explicit guidance is given.

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