get_functions_by_module

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves functions but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid module names), or the format of the output (e.g., list of names vs. structured data). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Get all functions defined in a specific module') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, with zero waste.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context. With no output schema, the agent must infer return values, which the description doesn't address, leaving gaps in completeness.

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%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (module_name, limit, include_signatures). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining module name formats or signature details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action ('Get all functions') and target resource ('in a specific module'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_functions' or 'search_functions' (which don't exist in the sibling list), but given the sibling tools focus on analysis, dependencies, and searching rather than direct listing, the distinction is somewhat implied though not explicitly stated.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_modules' (for listing modules first) or 'get_function_details' (for detailed function info), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid module name. The usage context is implied but not articulated.

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