list_qql_functions

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already signal a safe read operation. The description adds that the list is 'supported by the connected TimeBase server', indicating server-dependent availability, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as filtering behavior or performance implications.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 output schema, full parameter documentation, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool. It could mention filtering capabilities explicitly, but the schema covers these details.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter (kind, function_id, instance_key) documented. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so it remains at the baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'QQL function signatures' with the scope 'supported by the connected TimeBase server'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_streams or list_timebase_activity, which target different resources.

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 about what the tool does (lists QQL function signatures), but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or note exclusions. It is implied that this is for exploring available functions, but no direct comparison with sibling tools like compile_query or execute_query is given.

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