listFunctionalities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It mentions a 200 success response with a content type, but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'functionality' in this system. The example response is generic and unhelpful.

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?

While technically concise with minimal text, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The structure includes sections for query parameters and responses, but these sections contain no useful information. The description wastes space on empty parameter descriptions and a generic example response that doesn't help an agent understand the tool.

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 tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and complex filtering capabilities, this description is completely inadequate. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't explain what 'functionalities' are, how they relate to other resources, what filtering logic applies, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves an agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no meaningful parameter information. Every parameter is listed with 'No description' - this adds zero value beyond what the bare schema already provides. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'List functionalities' which is a tautology - it merely restates the tool name without providing any meaningful context about what 'functionalities' are in this system. While it's clear this is a list operation, it doesn't distinguish what functionalities represent or how they differ from other listable resources like alerts, incidents, or services.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling list tools (listAlerts, listIncidents, listServices, etc.), there's no indication of what makes 'functionalities' distinct or when an agent should choose this specific list operation over others. The description offers zero contextual guidance.

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