get_function_by_name

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 'Get a function by its name', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what happens if the function doesn't exist (e.g., returns null, throws an error), the format of the returned data, or any permissions required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, efficient sentence ('Get a function by its name') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be more structured by including key details like the tool's scope or limitations, but given its brevity, it earns a high score for conciseness.

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 complexity of function retrieval (implied by sibling tools like 'get_function_by_address'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'function' entails in this context, the return format, error handling, or how it fits among similar tools. This makes it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 'name' parameter clearly documented as 'Name of the function to get'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid names or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Get a function by its name' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('function'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_function_by_address' or 'get_current_function', which serve similar purposes but use different lookup methods. The description is vague about what 'function' means in this context (e.g., programming function, mathematical function).

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 'get_function_by_address' (for address-based lookup) or 'list_functions' (for listing all functions), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing the function name to be known. Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between similar tools.

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