get_method

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 implies a read-only operation via '查询' (query) and states that the result includes the method signature and description. However, it does not disclose error handling, permission requirements, or the exact structure of the returned signature. For a simple getter, this is moderate but not detailed.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or extraneous details. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it a model of conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. While it mentions '签名和说明' (signature and description), it does not specify the structure of the signature (e.g., parameters, return type) or any edge-case behavior. Given the tool's simplicity, the lack of output format details leaves an important gap for an agent deciding whether the result will be sufficient.

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 descriptions cover both parameters fully (className and methodName), with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply references the class and method context. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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's purpose: '查询某个类的特定方法签名和说明' (query the signature and description of a specific method of a class). It uses a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('特定方法的签名和说明') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_class and get_module. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with these alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 that get_method is for method-level details, or suggest using get_class for class-level details, or search_api for finding methods. There is no 'use this when' or 'use that when' information, so the agent has no support for choosing between siblings.

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