lambda_list_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 of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the name's meaning (list all Lambda functions) without describing return format, pagination, or any side effects. While 'list' implies a read-only operation, the description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond what the name already conveys.

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 efficient sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 description is adequate for a simple zero-parameter list tool: it names the resource and scope. However, it omits details like what the response contains (e.g., function names, metadata) and any pagination behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description could have been more helpful by specifying expected return values, but it remains minimally viable.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description need not add parameter syntax details since there are none; the description adequately serves the purpose.

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 clearly states the tool lists all Lambda functions in LocalStack, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Lambda functions'). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like lambda_get_function and other list tools (sns_list_topics, sqs_list_queues) by naming Lambda specifically.

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 description implies use when you need a list of all Lambda functions, but it provides no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., lambda_get_function for a single function). For a simple zero-parameter list tool, the implied usage is clear, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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