list_functions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a fixed, bounded set of 26 public items exists and that results mirror list_mixins' shape, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, nor about ordering or auth needs.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences, zero filler. The resource and scope come first, and the shape comparison to a sibling is a compact way to convey format.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It does convey the item count and output shape, but leaves three pagination/filter parameters entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a listing tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for limit, offset, and category. It only hints at categories (color, space, radius, shadow, font-size, z) without connecting them to the category parameter, and never explains limit/offset semantics.

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 (List) and resource (@functions), and adds concrete scope: 26 public functions with example categories. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_functions, leaving the list-vs-search split for the agent to infer.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The implicit contrast between 'List all' and the sibling search_functions can be guessed from the names, but the description itself provides no routing instruction or prerequisites.

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