get_functional_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. However, it only restates the purpose ('Get detailed documentation') and does not mention what the documentation contains, whether the tool returns structured data, how it behaves for unknown function names, or any error conditions. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context for a non-trivial lookup 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 extremely concise: one main sentence followed by an args section. Every word earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded. There is no wasted wording or redundancy with the input schema.

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?

The tool has one required parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks guidance on how to obtain a valid func_name (e.g., via list_available_functional) and what constitutes a 'functional utility' in this context. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap but prevents a higher 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides a minimal explanation for the only parameter: 'func_name: The functional utility name.' This adds some meaning beyond the schema (which only has the title 'Func Name'), but it does not clarify where to find valid values, expected format, or relationship to sibling list_available_functional. It is barely more than a synonym.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed documentation for a specific clearskies functional utility.' This uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('detailed documentation for a specific clearskies functional utility'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_available_functional (which enumerates utilities) by focusing on a specific named function.

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 the tool is used when you know the exact name of a functional utility and want its documentation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'use list_available_functional to see available names'), but the context of sibling tools and the singular 'specific' makes the use case clear. No exclusions are provided, so it falls short of a 5.

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