list_functions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination, which is useful, but fails to describe critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are ordered, or what happens with invalid parameters. For a tool with no 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('List all functions in the database') and adds a crucial behavioral note ('paginated') without any wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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 (a paginated list operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and pagination but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with gaps in understanding the full 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('count' and 'offset') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying pagination, which is already covered by the schema's descriptions. This meets the baseline score of 3 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 verb ('List') and resource ('all functions in the database'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_function_by_address' or 'get_function_by_name', which are more targeted retrieval methods rather than bulk listing.

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 like 'get_function_by_address' or 'get_function_by_name', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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