get_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. The description only says 'Returns function/method info' and hints at a detail mode, but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any performance implications, how it handles hidden files, ignore patterns, or the structure of the returned data. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with the first sentence stating what the tool does and the second providing a practical usage tip. It avoids unnecessary verbosity or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, but the description is extremely thin. It does not explain the return format, when to use the many filter/sort parameters, or how it relates to siblings like get_line_counts. While the schema covers parameter semantics, the description leaves the agent with limited context about the tool's overall behavior and output, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small but useful semantic hint for the 'detail' parameter (detail=lines produces line counts per function), but does not elaborate on other parameters. This matches the baseline with marginal added value.

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 'Returns function/method info', which is a specific verb+resource. It also adds a usage hint about detail=lines, which helps clarify the tool's capability. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_line_counts, which may also return line counts, so it's not a 5.

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 one concrete usage guideline: 'Use detail=lines for line counts per function.' This implies when the detail option is useful, but it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context is clear for this specific parameter, but overall guidance is minimal.

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