list_functions

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior by listing fields. It discloses the caveat about runtime not refreshing on redeploy. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or error conditions, so transparency is adequate but not outstanding.

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: first covers purpose and output details, second adds usage guidance and behavioral caveat. No redundant information, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

For a list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a detailed list of return fields and a behavioral note. It lacks mention of pagination or ordering, but these are not critical for basic usage. Overall sufficient for agent understanding.

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% for the single parameter project_id, but its description only says 'The project ID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate.

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 'List all deployed functions for a project' and enumerates specific fields shown. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like deploy_list or list_versions, the level of detail makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a specific alternative tool (functions_rebuild) for stale functions and warns that redeploy without source change does not refresh runtime. This gives clear guidance on when to use another tool and a behavioral nuance.

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