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. It discloses behavioral details such as the inclusion of runtime_version and deps_resolved for bundling-at-deploy functions, and that these fields are null for older functions. It does not mention read-only status, auth requirements, or pagination, but the provided context is sufficient for a simple listing tool.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding a nuanced detail about null fields. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential info: what it does, returned fields, and a special case. Minor omissions like pagination or ordering are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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% (1 parameter with description 'The project ID'). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'list all deployed functions for a project' and enumerates the specific fields returned (names, URLs, runtime, timeout, memory, and for bundling-at-deploy functions, runtime version and resolved dependencies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'deploy_list' or 'functions_rebuild'.

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 the tool is for listing functions, but it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'invoke_function', 'deploy_function', 'update_function'). No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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