list_rest_message_functions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating that it lists functions, which is already clear from annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and is as concise as possible without losing clarity.

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 operation with well-annotated read-only behavior and clear parameters, the description is mostly complete. It could briefly mention the type of objects returned, but given the annotations and schema, it is sufficiently informative.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (rest_message_sys_id and limit). The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is adequate. The schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'HTTP methods (functions)', and the container 'within a REST Message'. It distinguishes effectively from sibling tools like 'list_rest_messages' and 'list_soap_message_functions'.

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 usage by requiring a REST Message sys_id, which sets a clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_rest_messages' or 'list_soap_message_functions') or when not to use it.

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