get_method_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that Kotlin compiler metadata is stripped by default and how to get a raw dump, but does not mention error behavior, overload resolution, or read-only nature beyond the verb 'fetch'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by a relevant behavioral note. No wasted words; the structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps around method_signature semantics and error/overload behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It fully explains slim but leaves class_name, method_name, and especially method_signature undocumented, including how to handle overloaded methods.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the source code of a method from a specific class.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_class_source (class-level) and search_method_by_name (search), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (fetch method source from a known class) and by the slim parameter note, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like search_method_by_name or get_methods_of_class.

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