get_http_function_snippet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Read' and adds the performance trait of token-efficiency. However, it does not mention return format, error handling, or behavior for non-existent function names.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The token-efficiency rationale is valuable and there is no wasted wording.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description effectively communicates the core action and a key benefit. It could add the return type or explicitly note non-mutation, but the current level is sufficient for selection and basic invocation.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter function_names, including an example. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the 'by name' aspect, which does not meaningfully improve parameter understanding.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'specific function(s)' with the scope 'by name'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_http_function by emphasizing token-efficiency compared to reading the full file.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: use this when you need specific functions by name and want to avoid the token cost of reading the entire file. It implies the alternative (reading the full file) but does not explicitly name the sibling tool or state when not to use it.

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