functions_complete_success

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only states the action without describing side effects, required permissions, or what happens after signaling completion. The agent is left unaware of potential consequences or return values.

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 sentence, efficiently communicating the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. However, it might be too brief, lacking necessary detail for a tool with two parameters and an output schema.

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?

Given that there is an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it does not mention error handling, prerequisites, or the relationship to the sibling tool 'functions_complete_error'. For a simple signaling tool, it is minimally adequate but could provide more context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the 'function_execution_id' or 'outputs' parameters beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain how to structure outputs or where the ID comes from.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Signal the successful completion of a function.' It uses a specific verb ('Signal') and resource ('completion of a function'), and its purpose is clearly distinct from the sibling tool 'functions_complete_error', which would signal an error.

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 when to use this tool (when a function completes successfully), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling.

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