get_functions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the file-vs-project scope but no further behavioral context (return shape, truncation semantics) beyond what the schema/annotations provide.

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 with zero waste; the primary scoping distinction appears before the parenthetical detail.

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 simple read-only lister with 100% schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the definition is largely sufficient. Without an output schema, it could say what a function row contains, but that gap is minor for this tool class.

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 every parameter is self-documented, so the schema carries the burden. The description only echoes file_path's scoping role already stated in the schema, adding no new syntax or meaning for hints, compress, project, or max_results.

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+resource ('List functions') and scopes it two ways: a single file via file_path, or project-wide. An agent can tell it is a lister rather than a source fetcher, but it does not name the contrasting sibling (get_function_source) 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 implied by the two scoping modes ('in a file ... or across the project'), which hints at when each applies. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives (e.g. get_function_source for a single body) are given.

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