list_functions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether it returns only names or full definitions, permissions required, if it's a read-only operation, or any limits. As a listing tool, it's likely safe, but the description doesn't state that.

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 concise with a clear opening sentence and an args section for the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and the parameter details are brief and to the point. No superfluous information.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from specifying what the output looks like (e.g., list of function names) but the output schema covers that. It lacks detail on behavior like read-only nature, but for a listing tool, this is acceptable.

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 schema has one parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description mentions 'schema' and its default value. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, but for a single simple parameter, it's adequate. The description could clarify that it accepts a schema name, but it does.

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 the tool lists user-defined functions and stored procedures in a schema, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on functions rather than schemas or tables, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 use for inspecting functions and procedures, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. sibling tools like list_tables or describe_table. It provides no exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer context from the resource type.

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