list_functional_objectives

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of describing side effects. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only; no side effects' and further explains the semantic structure of each objective (Capability × Condition, Given-When-Then), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the bare operation.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: action, conceptual definition, and alternative routing. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary 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?

Given the low complexity, presence of an output schema, and coverage of safety, semantics, and alternatives, the description is largely complete. The only notable gap is the undocumented server_version parameter, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

Only 1 of 2 parameters (model_id) has a schema description; server_version is completely unexplained. The description does not mention parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap. It only refers to 'a model' without clarifying the role of server_version.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('functional objective'), and clarifies scope ('every ... for a model'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_functional_objective and get_functional_coverage as alternatives for other needs.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to enumerate the functional test plan') and names alternative tools for detail and coverage state. This provides clear selection guidance and prevents ambiguity with similar sibling tools.

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