get_http_function

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context by disclosing exactly what each mode returns (names + line ranges vs. full code + collection schemas) and which mode is default. It doesn't mention permissions or rate limits, but for a read-only getter the return-shape disclosure is the salient behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then uses bullets to separate the two modes, followed by a tip and guide flag. No sentence is wasted and the structure matches how an agent would reason about the choices.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully — it spells out the return content of both modes. Combined with complete parameter and mode guidance and a sibling pointer, the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond the terse schema text ('true=function list only, false=full code'). It explains what overview actually returns, notes the default, and describes include_guide's one-time nature, materially enriching both parameters.

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 and resource ('Get the main HTTP function file') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling get_http_function_snippet, which it names. An agent can distinguish it from the many other 'get_*' tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly maps each mode to a task: overview=true for browsing/structure discovery, overview=false for writing/refactoring. It also names the alternative (get_http_function_snippet) and the condition (small fixes) that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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