list_capi_functions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns name, return type, and parameter types, which is adequate for a read-only search tool. However, it does not mention any limitations, performance characteristics, or whether the snapshot is dynamic, but the behavioral impact is minimal.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and return structure, and the second sentence gives usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use, and what it returns. It could be improved by noting any versioning details or that the snapshot is static, but it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('filter' and 'limit') are well-described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning or usage details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 it searches the FLOX C-API surface and returns function signatures. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('C-API surface'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on C-level symbols exported as flox_* functions.

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 explicitly tells when to use: when the user is writing FFI code or asks 'what C symbols can I call'. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings, but the guidance is clear and context-specific.

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