Get Functions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the supported batch size (1–5 functions) and the type of metadata returned, but it does not go beyond 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence packs the operation, resource, and batch limit with no redundant words. Every element earns its place.

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 a complete input schema, a true readOnly annotation, and an output schema present, an agent has what it needs to make a correct call. The only missing context is guidance for choosing this tool, which is covered by the usage_guidelines score.

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?

Input-schema description coverage is 100%, which already documents the array-of-objects shape and the 'only server_name and function_name' constraint. The description adds the 1–5 count limit, but otherwise does not elaborate on parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Inspect') and names an exact resource: real parameter, request-body, and response metadata for functions. It is clearly distinct from siblings like search_functions or list_servers, which are about discovery rather than metadata lookup.

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 for inspecting metadata, but it never states when to choose it over search_functions or other siblings, nor does it describe when not to use it. No explicit preconditions, alternatives, or exclusion criteria are provided.

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