get_functions

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the SHOW FUNCTIONS execution model and optional pattern filtering, but does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances such as default-database handling or result format.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes the SQL equivalent in parentheses, and mentions the optional filter. Every phrase earn its place.

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 is simple, the annotations cover safety, and the output schema exists, so the description need not describe return values. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit behavior for missing db_name or pattern defaults, which matters for fully correct 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains that the pattern is a LIKE pattern and that the operation targets a database, which maps to db_name and pattern. However, it does not clarify what happens when db_name is empty or how the default interacts with the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('built-in and user-defined functions of a database'), and grounds it in the SQL equivalent (SHOW FUNCTIONS). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools about tables, schemas, and DDL.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of when not to use it. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions to the agent.

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