list_functions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (listing functions) and the return format, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured sections for args and returns. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting with separate sections is slightly verbose but still efficient.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return format, but misses behavioral context like permissions or limitations, which is important for a database query tool with no structured annotations.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'schema' by specifying it as the schema name with a default value of 'public', which is not covered in the input schema (0% schema description coverage). This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation, though it could include more details like format or constraints.

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 resource 'functions and procedures in a schema', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_tables' or 'list_views', which list other database objects, missing an opportunity for full differentiation.

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 usage for retrieving functions in a given schema, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'describe_table' or 'query'. The context is clear but lacks any when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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