get_function_info

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 only says 'Get detailed information' without defining what information is returned, whether this is a safe read-only operation, or any requirements or error conditions. It does not contradict any annotations, but it adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object, then scopes the API set. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant information.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too vague to be fully useful. 'Detailed information' does not say what details are returned (signatures, docs, examples, etc.), and the class_name condition is left to the schema. The description also fails to explain how this tool relates to search_functions, leaving an agent to infer the correct choice.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the api enum values by naming JSFX, ReaScript, and ReaWrap, but it adds nothing about function_name or class_name beyond what the schema already provides. No extra semantic detail is offered for any parameter.

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 ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a function'), scoped to three explicitly named APIs: JSFX, ReaScript, and ReaWrap. This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from the sibling tool search_functions, which implies searching rather than retrieving details for a known function.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_functions. The description does not say 'use this when you already know the function name' or mention that class_name is required for ReaWrap. These important conditions are only present in the schema, and no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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