getFunctionNames

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's focus (functions only) and purpose (quick analysis), but lacks details on error handling, output format, or performance characteristics like speed or limitations. It adds some behavioral context but is incomplete.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second provides usage context. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's moderate complexity (extracting function names from code), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and its focus, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or edge behaviors, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 100%, with the parameter 'code' documented as 'PureScript code snippet.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('Extract only function names') and resource ('from PureScript code snippets'), distinguishing it from siblings like getTopLevelDeclarationNames or getImports by focusing exclusively on functions while ignoring data types and classes.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Quick analysis for code understanding' and focusing on functions only), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as getTopLevelDeclarationNames for broader extraction.

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