list_function_implementations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns contracts with implementation details and supports pagination. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, authentication needs, or performance considerations. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 four sentences, each conveying essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then use cases, then behavior. Very efficient.

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 description covers the main use cases and pagination. However, given the complexity of the search and presence of an output schema, it could mention error handling, result format, or limitations (e.g., case sensitivity). It is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has detailed descriptions for all parameters (function_signature, contract_key, path, limit, offset). The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning 'signature string' and 'pagination', which are already covered. Since schema_description_coverage is effectively high (schema descriptions are present), baseline is 3.

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 uses a specific verb 'Finds' and resource 'contracts that implement a specific function signature', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_functions or get_function_callees by focusing on implementations across contracts.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when looking for overrides of a virtual function, finding all implementations of an interface method, or understanding polymorphism'. It also mentions pagination support. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.

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