list_functions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists functions and supports filtering, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any edge cases (e.g., sorting, ordering, or handling of special function names). For a simple listing tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and main parameter.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the core functionality, the current-file scope, and the filtering option. The return values are presumably documented in the output schema, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 schema provides only a type and default for filter_keyword, with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the keyword filters by function name or address. This goes beyond the schema's basic type information, though it leaves open details like matching semantics (substring, exact) or address format.

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 tool's function: 'List all functions identified in the current file.' This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from siblings like decompile_function or disassemble_function. The filtering capability is also mentioned, further clarifying its purpose.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—when you need to enumerate functions in the current file—and mentions the optional filtering feature. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope ('current file') and filtering behavior imply the intended use case without ambiguity.

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