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 disclosure burden. Being a 'list' operation implies read-only behavior and it states the scope ('in the workspace'), but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or what the returned collection contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the optional-filter behavior. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is absence of any note about result size, pagination, or ordering, which the annotations would normally have supplied.

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% and the enum is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond the schema: the parameter is optional and omitting it returns every type, which the schema's 'Only return functions of this type.' does not state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List functions in the workspace'), clearly distinguishing it from the singular sibling get_function. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool.

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 covers parameter usage ('Optionally filter by resourceType; omit it to list every type') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_function or other list_* tools. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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