list_qql_functions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's addition of 'supported by the connected TimeBase server' adds a meaningful caveat about dynamic results. However, it does not detail other behavioral aspects like filtering behavior or output structure, which are left to annotations and schema.

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?

A single, grammatically clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema and all parameters are documented in the schema. The description sufficiently defines the tool's core purpose; however, it omits context about filtering options, but the schema covers those. Overall it is complete for a read-only list operation.

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% (each parameter has a description). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific value beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('QQL function signatures') with a clear scope ('supported by the connected TimeBase server'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_streams or execute_query.

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 need to know available QQL functions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. The context is clear but not directly instructional.

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