openwebui_get_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the response includes Python source code and configuration, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or confirm the read-only nature, though 'Get' implies it. This is acceptable for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place — it conveys the purpose and key content without unnecessary details or repetition.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward read operation, the description is largely complete. It specifies what is returned (source code and configuration). It stops short of describing the exact return format or any potential errors, but for this complexity level, the description is adequate and not misleading.

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 one parameter (id) with a clear description and example, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of a specific function') with additional detail about contents (Python source code and configuration). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_functions, create_function, and update_function by focusing on retrieval of a single function's full details.

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 this tool: when full details of a specific function are needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using list_functions for summaries or update_function for modifications. The purpose itself provides clear context, but no explicit guidance against other tools.

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