pg_function_list

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, performance impact, or result format (e.g., whether signatures include argument types, default values, etc.). The minimal description does not prepare the agent for the tool's behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action (list) and resource (functions and procedures with signatures). While short, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what 'signatures' means (e.g., includes parameter names, types, return type). It omits this detail and also lacks any context on connection or schema dependencies. The agent is left without enough information to fully understand the tool's output.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on the expected format or behavior of the 'target' and 'schema' parameters.

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 that the tool lists functions and procedures with their signatures, matching the tool name 'pg_function_list'. It distinguishes the resource (functions and procedures) from other list tools like pg_table_list, but does not explicitly differentiate the listing scope or context.

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 such as pg_schema_list or pg_view_list. An agent would need to infer usage from the tool name alone, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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