functions_get_definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, does not mention permission requirements, and does not describe behavior for missing functions or invalid inputs. The description is minimal and lacks context about side effects or safety.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the tool's action and target resource.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it omits any context about error handling, permissions, or when to use this tool over siblings. Given the output schema exists and the core behavior is clear, it is minimally complete but lacks contextual richness.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters. The description mentions 'by name' which partially covers function_name, but does not explain schema_name or clarify that both are required to uniquely identify a function. This leaves the parameters under-explained.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and identifies the resource as 'full source code (CREATE FUNCTION) of an RPC/function', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like functions_list that enumerate functions. It also specifies the lookup by name, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as functions_list, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied use case is obtaining a single function's definition, but no direct comparison or conditions are given.

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