Get function invocation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description meaningfully adds beyond that: it discloses that output/logs are only present when output_retained is true, warning the agent that fields may be absent. It stops short of describing permissions or the full response shape.

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 with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the conditional output caveat. Every clause earns 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?

With no output schema, the description carries some burden for return values, and it names status, usage cost, and conditional outputs. That is reasonably complete for a simple two-parameter lookup, though it does not enumerate the remaining fields.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented as function_id and invocation_id with clear provenance (list_functions, invoke_function, list_function_invocations). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource (get a Firecracker Function invocation) and names the returned content (status and usage cost). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_function_invocations by the singular scope, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

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?

Usage is only implied: the resource name suggests fetching a single invocation, and the schema descriptions point to invoke_function or list_function_invocations as the source of the ID. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative.

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