functions_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the special 'all' value for schema_name and indicates that the output includes signature and return type. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any permission requirements, though 'list' implies a non-mutating action.

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 one concise sentence with two clauses, communicating the purpose and key parameter behavior without any filler. Every word 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It lacks sibling differentiation and explicit confirmation of no side effects, but these are not critical for a basic list operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the schema_name parameter's special 'all' value, giving it meaningful context beyond the schema's default of 'public'. This adds direct value for a single-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Postgres functions') with clear output details ('signature, return type'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like functions_list_rpc_candidates or functions_get_definition, but the name and scope make the primary 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as functions_list_rpc_candidates or functions_get_definition. The only usage hint is the schema_name='all' special value, which is more about parameter behavior than tool selection.

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