list_functions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only lists what it returns without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, performance impact, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'list'). This gap leaves the agent uninformed about side effects or restrictions.

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 sentence that immediately states the core action and included fields, then succinctly points to a sibling tool. No wasted words.

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 an output schema present, the description only needs to provide a quick summary, which it does. It adequately distinguishes from sibling tools, though it could add more detail on any limitations or ordering.

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 single parameter 'schema' has no description in the input schema (0% coverage). The description mentions 'in a schema' but does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints beyond the default.

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 it lists functions and procedures in a schema, specifying the fields (signature, return type, language, kind). It also explicitly mentions an alternative tool (get_function_definition) for full source, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

It directs the agent to use get_function_definition for full source, providing clear context on when to use an alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites.

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