get_function_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely states it 'gets detailed information,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it has side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that is extremely concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no filler. Every word is meaningful.

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 simple two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description provides adequate context by listing what the response includes (signature, parameters, usage). However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON, text), which would be more complete.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., className example 'EntityAI'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific function, including signature, parameters, and usage. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_callers (which finds callers) and find_usage_examples (which finds usage examples), as it focuses on the function's own 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 the tool is used when needing details of a specific function, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., find_callers for callers, find_usage_examples for usage patterns). No guidance is provided on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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