List function invocations

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the result is capped at the latest 50 and returns status/duration/cost. It does not discuss pagination limits or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 zero filler; the core scope ('latest 50 ... with status, duration, and cost') is front-loaded and the routing hint follows. 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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and clarifies the relationship to the history tool. It is nearly complete for a one-parameter read tool, though it could say more about whether the 50 cap is a hard limit or adjustable.

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% for the single function_id parameter, which the schema already documents as coming from list_functions. The description adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('List') and resource ('invocations of a Firecracker Function') and names the scope ('latest 50') and returned fields (status, duration, cost). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_function_history, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative tool (list_function_history) and the exact condition that selects it: 'older runs and pagination.' That is an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative statement rather than an implied one.

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