functions

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that by stating the tool is paged and by documenting the exact returned row columns, which helps the agent understand the response shape without an output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important information: what is listed, the row shape, paging, filtering, sorting, and the sibling exclusion. Every clause carries useful 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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description defines the returned row columns, which is critical. Combined with the read-only annotation and the fully described schema, an agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates some of that information (filtering by name or entry hex, sorting by size for largest) but does not add significant semantics beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List discovered functions') and even specifies the exact row shape returned (`entry size blocks instrs callers callees src name`). It also scopes the tool against a sibling by saying it is not for imports and should use `symbols` for those.

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?

It clearly indicates when not to use the tool ('Not for imports') and names the alternative (`symbols`). It also explains the main usage patterns (filtering by name or entry hex, sorting by size for largest), though it does not compare against other function-related siblings like `function` or `function_summary`.

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