List functions in a schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the source table (SYS.FUNCTIONS) and that both scalar and table functions are listed, but it does not disclose details like default limits or pagination behavior, which would enhance transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and packs essential details like source view and supported features without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple list operation with strong annotations, the description provides adequate context: what is listed, from where, and key capabilities. It lacks an explicit mention of the schema_name default (HANA_SCHEMA) or return format, but those are partially covered by the schema and the simplicity of the tool. No output schema exists, but the description is still fairly complete for its scope.

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 50%, with limit and offset lacking descriptions. The description mentions 'pagination' and 'prefix filter', which hints at the purpose of limit/offset and prefix parameters, but it does not explain default values or how these parameters interact. This adds some value but does not fully compensate for the schema gaps.

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 'List scalar and table functions from SYS.FUNCTIONS', specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like hana_list_procedures by specifying function types and the source system view. The support for prefix filter and pagination further clarifies its functionality.

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 when to use the tool (to list functions) and mentions capabilities like prefix filtering and pagination, but it does not provide explicit exclusions or contrast with alternatives such as hana_describe_function or hana_list_procedures. Usage context is clear but not explicitly stated.

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