functions_that_raise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says the tool returns functions based on parser-detected exceptions. There is no disclosure about side effects (it seems read-only), required permissions, or limitations (e.g., reliance on preanalysis). The behavioral scope is minimal.

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?

One sentence of 12 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action and condition. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the source of functions (repository) without adding significant length.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), return values are clarified. However, the tool is part of a code analysis suite and likely requires a repository to be open and preanalysis run; this is not mentioned. The description is adequate but misses important setup 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. For 'exception_name', it clarifies that it is the named exception to search for. However, 'session_id' is not mentioned, and no details about format or constraints are given. The description partially compensates but is insufficient for full understanding.

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 'Return functions whose parser-detected exception list includes the named exception.' It specifies the verb (Return), resource (functions), and condition (parser-detected exception list includes the named exception). While unambiguous, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'nodes_with_annotation' or 'search_nodes', but the specialization to exceptions provides implicit distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'callers_of' or 'nodes_with_annotation'. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate or what preconditions exist (e.g., needing a repository open and preanalysis).

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