Get function

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

The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond structured fields: OAuth reads redact environment values and webhook secrets, and those fields should be omitted on unrelated edits. However, it frames the call as a plain read ('Get', 'OAuth reads') while annotations set readOnlyHint=false, which signals a non-read-only operation and risks misleading the agent about side effects.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the redaction caveat. The 'omit those fields during unrelated edits' clause is slightly tangential to a getter but earns its place as a data-safety warning.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the payload (code, config, webhook details) and the redaction behavior, which is enough for a single-parameter getter. It lacks any note on failure modes or auth scopes needed to call it.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself cross-references list_functions for the ID's origin, so the description adds nothing about the single parameter. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one Firecracker Function') plus what the single call returns: code, config, and webhook details. It is clearly distinct from list_functions by the word 'one', though it never names siblings to differentiate explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this over list_functions, get_function_invocation, or update_function, and no prerequisite/auth requirement spelled out. The second sentence gives an edit-time caveat rather than usage context for this tool.

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