get_function

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 transparently explains that it returns the function definition from sys.sql_modules and parameter list from sys.parameters, and specifies supported function types and platforms. Missing details on permissions or error handling, but sufficient for a read-only tool.

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 highly concise with clear section headings (Args:) and front-loaded key details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, supported types, and platforms adequately. Minor gap: does not mention error cases (e.g., function not found), but overall complete for agent usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'qualified_name' as a dot-separated function name with an example, but does not explain 'workspace' and 'item' beyond their types. Thus, it adds some value but not comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 it fetches the full definition of a T-SQL user-defined function, including function definition and parameter list. It specifies supported types (scalar UDFs, inline TVFs) and platforms (Data Warehouses, SQL Analytics Endpoints), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_view or get_procedure.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_functions. It implies usage for detailed function definitions but does not state when not to use or provide exclusions.

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