list_functions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals a key behavioral trait: an unchanged-source redeploy does not refresh injected runtime. This adds important context beyond the obvious list operation, though it does not mention permissions or other safety aspects.

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 sentences with no filler: the first covers purpose and output, the second provides a related action and a behavioral caveat. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema), the description is thorough. It lists the output fields, provides a cross-reference to a sibling, and highlights a runtime behavior. It lacks only a return format description, which is acceptable for a list tool.

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 only parameter, 'project_id', is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameter, but the schema already provides adequate context for a simple string parameter.

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 it lists all deployed functions for a project and specifies the exact fields shown (names, URLs, runtime, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'functions_rebuild' by noting when to use that alternative.

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 provides a when-to-use hint (rebuild stale functions with 'functions_rebuild') and implies that this tool is for inspection only. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases like deploying or updating functions, which is acceptable for a read-only list tool.

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