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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns details including script, but omits any information about read-only nature, permissions, error handling, or side effects. For a read operation, this is minimal.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the key action and parameter clarification. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description should provide insight into return values. It only mentions '包括脚本' (including script), which is incomplete. Details about other fields, error cases, or success indicators are missing, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for the only parameter 'ref'. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'ref' can be an id or name, which is valuable for correct invocation. However, it could be enhanced with format examples 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 '获取' (get) and the resource '函数详情' (function details) with the additional qualifier '含脚本' (including script). It also explains that the reference parameter can be an id or name, making the purpose specific and distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_api' or 'list_functions'.

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 (to get function details by ref) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_functions' or 'search_code'. There are no usage exclusions or context for selection.

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