get_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does useful work by revealing the payload shape (body and source location are included, so the caller should expect full source text), but it says nothing about failure behavior when a name is not found, ambiguity handling, or whether results are cached/versioned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation and then lists the return fields with zero filler. Nothing is repeated from the schema or the name.

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?

With no output schema present, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields. For a one-parameter, fully documented read tool this is nearly sufficient; only error/not-found behavior is left unaddressed.

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 the schema itself supplies the format expectation plus concrete name examples ('color', 'space', 'radius', 'shadow'). The description adds no additional semantics (no exact-match vs fuzzy behavior, no qualified-name syntax), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return one function') and resource, and enumerates exactly what comes back: signature, parameters, doc, body, source location. The singular 'one function' plus the get_/list_/search_ sibling naming pattern makes it distinguishable from list_functions and search_functions, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the required 'name' parameter and the single-result framing suggest fetching a known function by name, leaving list_functions/search_functions for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of how to find a name in the first place.

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