whodb_platform_function

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds traits the annotations do not: source file content is capped in MCP output, and secret bindings expose secret ids only, never values — both are meaningful expectations for the caller.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single short line, followed by tightly scoped guidance on fields, caps, secrets, and workspace. Slightly dense in the middle, and the workspace sentence partially duplicates the schema text, but no sentence is clearly wasteful.

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?

With a nested workspace object and no output schema, the description adequately covers targeted invocation, field-selection cost, output capping, and secret redaction. It leaves only minor gaps, such as what identifying forms `id` accepts, but is otherwise complete for a read tool.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the trade-off behind `fields` (request only what is needed now; heavier fields like "files" only when source code is required) and by clarifying that `workspace` targets a single call without changing session defaults.

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 ("Inspect") and a precise resource ("one ontology function by id"), and the word "one" distinguishes it from the plural listing tool whodb_platform_functions. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast against near-neighbors like whodb_platform_functions, function_runs, or function_wait.

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 "Inspect one ontology function by id" — an agent can infer it is the single-resource read path. But there is no explicit routing guidance versus siblings (e.g., use this only when you already have the id; use whodb_platform_functions to discover ids), and no stated preconditions or exclusions, so it falls short of a 4.

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