whodb_platform_functions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so credit here goes to the extra disclosure: function source file content is capped in MCP output, and secret bindings expose ids only, never values. Those are genuine behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the annotations. It still doesn't describe pagination behavior for continuing a large list.

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 the first sentence, followed by filter guidance, field selection advice, and the output/security caveats. Each sentence carries distinct information with little padding, though the closing workspace sentence restates schema content and is somewhat redundant.

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 10-parameter, no-required-args, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers scope, filters, field selection trade-offs, output truncation, secret redaction, and per-call workspace targeting. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only list continuation behavior is left implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: 'type maps to language for this tool' disambiguates an overloaded parameter, and it names the recommended lightweight field set versus the heavy 'files' field. It doesn't explain offset/limit continuation beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'List ontology functions in the selected hosted project.' An agent can tell this is a list operation over the function resource. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the singular sibling whodb_platform_function, leaving that routing to inference.

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?

'Use name, type, and deployed filters when known' and 'Request heavier fields such as "files" only when source code is needed' give practical guidance on how to drive the parameters. What is missing is tool-level routing: when to call this versus whodb_platform_function or whodb_platform_function_runs, and any stated exclusions.

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