get_function_by_name

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 states 'Get a function by its name', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it returns detailed metadata, code, or a simple reference; whether it requires specific permissions; or how it handles missing functions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 has an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and a simple but potentially ambiguous purpose (e.g., what does 'get' return?), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks depth for a tool that might interact with complex function data in a debugging or analysis context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'name' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Get a function by its name' clearly states the action (get) and resource (function), but it's vague about what 'get' entails—does it return metadata, code, or something else? It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_function_by_address' by specifying 'by name', but doesn't explain the difference in usage or output compared to similar tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_function_by_address', 'list_functions', or 'get_current_function'. The description implies it's for retrieving a specific function by name, but doesn't specify prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names alone.

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