list_udfs_detailed

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lacks details about read-only nature, rate limits, or what 'comprehensive' entails (e.g., includes metadata, artifacts, etc.). Minimal 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?

Single, short sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless tool, though it could benefit from additional context on output scope.

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 large set of sibling UDF tools, the description fails to clearly differentiate from 'get_udf_details' or 'list_udfs'. It does not elaborate on output schema details despite having one, leaving ambiguity. Incomplete for effective tool selection.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the hint 'comprehensive' suggests output richness, which adds marginal value.

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 'Get comprehensive UDF information' clearly indicates the tool retrieves detailed UDF data. It distinguishes from 'list_udfs' (basic list) and 'get_udf' (single UDF) by implying richer output, but the term 'comprehensive' is somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_udfs' or 'get_udf_details'. The description does not specify usage context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer.

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