list_functions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool parses the file, handles errors, or returns locations. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about side effects 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 concise: a single sentence plus a parameter line. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Every word is useful, though the parameter description could be integrated more naturally.

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 complexity (C/C++ function listing), the description is minimal. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the description lacks mention of parsing scope, error handling, or performance considerations. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Path to the C/C++ source file' for file_path, which is slightly more informative than the schema's 'File Path'. However, it omits details like accepted formats, absolute/relative paths, or file extension expectations.

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 ('Extract') and clearly identifies the resource ('function/method declarations and definitions from a C/C++ file'). It distinguishes from siblings like find_symbol and get_includes by focusing on listing all functions rather than finding a specific one or retrieving includes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (find_symbol, get_includes, clang_format). There is no mention of prerequisites, file types beyond C/C++, or context where this tool should be preferred.

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