pixera_has_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Probe' implies a safe read-only query, but the description does not explicitly confirm non-mutation, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits; it adds little beyond the name itself.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its sparseness reflects missing information rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits parameter semantics and usage context. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but the remaining gaps are significant.

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% for the single required 'name' parameter. The phrase 'supports an API function' hints that the parameter is an API function name, but the description gives no format, case-sensitivity, or naming-convention details to compensate for the empty schema description.

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 states a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('whether the connected Pixera supports an API function'), so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as pixera_get_api_revision, pixera_describe, or pixera_call, which all touch API capability or invocation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this probe rather than pixera_get_api_revision, pixera_describe, or pixera_call. The description only states the tool's purpose and leaves the selection context entirely to inference from the sibling names.

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