listFunctionGroup

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a key behavioral insight: it avoids the bloated 30-character-padded bridge URIs that nodeContents would produce, making it more efficient. This is valuable, though it doesn't detail the exact output format or the impact of the includeGlobals flag.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds a clarifying comparison to nodeContents. It could be slightly clearer with a period after 'types' but overall it's efficient and well-structured.

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 tool has only two parameters, full schema descriptions, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential usage context. The comparison to nodeContents is a helpful contextual cue for selection. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return format (names and URLs as a list), but that is implied and not critical.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, such as examples or constraints. It mentions 'names and source URLs' which roughly maps to the output, but not to parameter specifics.

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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'function group', and enumerates the specific contents (modules, includes, global data/types). It contrasts with the sibling tool nodeContents, which is crucial for disambiguation among a large list of tools. This makes the 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 implies when to use this tool (when you need names and source URLs without the verbose nodeContents output), but it does not explicitly say 'Do not use nodeContents' or 'Use this for lightweight listing'. There is no guidance on when to avoid it or prerequisites. It assumes the reader understands the performance trade-off.

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