sls_add_functions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutation ('Add'), but does not disclose authentication needs via api_key, whether it modifies an existing config file, how duplicate function names are handled, or what the response looks like.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's action, target, and scope.

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?

The schema covers parameters well, and the description gives a clear overall purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important operational context like whether the config must already exist, whether functions are appended or replaced, and what success or failure looks like.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by mentioning 'event triggers,' which maps to the 'event' parameter, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for service_name, api_key, or handler paths.

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 names a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('function definitions'), and the target ('Serverless Framework config'), and also highlights the inclusion of event triggers. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like sls_generate_config and sls_optimize.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool: when adding function definitions to a Serverless Framework config. However, it gives no explicit guidance about prerequisites, such as whether the config must already exist, and does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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