List functions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful details about filter and sort behavior, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination semantics, or any limits beyond the schema. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 tightly written sentences pack in the resource, action, filtering capability, and sortable columns. There is no filler, and the most useful information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 read-only listing tool with no required parameters, the description covers the core purpose and key behaviors well. The main gaps are lack of explicit return shape and default/pagination behavior, but the sortable-table framing plus the schema's limit/offset fields make this largely sufficient.

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 low at 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the query parameter ('substring') and repeats sort fields, matching the sort enum. However, limit and offset are not explained in the description, leaving pagination semantics to be inferred from their names and schema constraints.

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 names the resource ('the program's functions') and the action ('browse'), with concrete capabilities like substring filtering and sorting. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as call_graph or program_info, so it stops short of 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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a sortable, filterable table of functions. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer list_functions over sibling tools, nor any exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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