functions_list_calls

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits beyond structure: results are ordered newest first, and the returned record shape includes outcome values and HTTP status. It does not state the retention window for 'recent', how cursor pagination terminates, or that this is a non-mutating read, which leaves real gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and ordering, then lists the fields worth knowing. No filler or repetition. The colon-delimited field list is efficient rather than rambling, though the sentence fragment style is slightly clipped.

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 correctly spends its words enumerating return fields, which is the right allocation. However, for a six-parameter paginated list tool it omits how paging works in practice and how far back 'recent' reaches, leaving the agent to discover those by trial.

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%, with the q filter syntax (took:>200ms status:>=500 is:cold), kind/outcome enums, limit default of 20, and cursor semantics all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: recent function invocations, ordered newest first, and enumerates what each entry carries (trigger kind and cause, outcome, HTTP status, duration, error first line). That is far more concrete than a restatement of the name. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (functions_get_call for a single call, logs_search for log text), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named even though functions_get_call, functions_replay_call, and logs_search are obvious adjacent choices. The only implicit signal is 'recent', which hints at a recency-bounded listing, but nothing tells the agent how to page past it or what to do when it needs one call's full detail.

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