list_functions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'SAVES: Claude context for strategic decisions', which adds valuable behavioral context about output persistence. However, it doesn't describe other important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or what format the returned information takes.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (main description, WORKFLOW, TIP, SAVES) that are front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence serves a distinct purpose in guiding usage and understanding behavior.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, workflow positioning, and adds behavioral context about saving Claude context. The main gap is lack of information about the return format, but given the tool's relatively simple discovery function, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (category, detailed, includeExamples). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all available Houtini LM functions with usage information', making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes this tool from its many siblings by focusing on function discovery rather than analysis, generation, or other specialized operations.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance in the 'WORKFLOW' and 'TIP' sections: it states this tool is for 'System diagnostics and function discovery', advises to 'Start with health_check' first, and then 'use list_functions to explore capabilities'. This gives clear context for when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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