function_documentation

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. While 'Return the docstring' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify error handling (e.g., what happens if the function doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or format of the returned docstring. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.

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, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. Given the absence of annotations, more completeness would be beneficial, but it's not entirely inadequate.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'function' clearly documented as 'Function name.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for adequate but not additive information.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('docstring for a function or macro'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'variable_documentation', which likely serves a similar purpose for variables rather than functions/macros.

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. With sibling tools like 'function_source' (which might return source code) and 'variable_documentation' (for variables), there's no indication of when this specific documentation tool is preferred or what its limitations might be.

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