get_function

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Get" implies a read, but it says nothing about authorization requirements, behavior when the id does not exist (error vs. empty), or whether the result is cached; for a zero-annotation tool these omissions matter.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the retrieval key is stated before any elaboration. It is terse to the point of being sparse, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter getter with a fully covered schema, the description is minimally adequate, though with no output schema it gives no hint of what a "function" object contains or how failures surface.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single functionId parameter is documented in the schema, so the description adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (function) with the retrieval key (by id), which is enough to distinguish it from list_functions and the other list_* siblings. It stops just short of naming an alternative, but the singular-vs-plural contrast with list_functions is clear enough for selection.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of list_functions for discovery or api_get for arbitrary endpoints. The agent must infer that this is the direct-lookup path when an id is already known.

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