run_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains an important naming convention (function_name excludes method prefix) and provides an example, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose potential side effects of running a function, authentication requirements, response format, or error behavior. This is partial transparency, sufficient for basic usage but not comprehensive.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a succinct example. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The tool has three parameters, one of which is a free-form object, and no output schema. The description explains the naming convention but does not address what 'params' should contain or what the function returns. It also lacks context on side effects or error scenarios. While the tool seems relatively simple, the description leaves some gaps for an agent to fully predict behavior.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the method-prefix clarification and example, which helps interpret function_name and method. However, it does not elaborate on the 'params' object structure or how parameters map to the function call, leaving some ambiguity for nested arguments. Given high schema coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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's purpose: 'Run a deployed HTTP function.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('deployed HTTP function'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_http_function or edit_http_function by focusing on execution rather than inspection or modification. The example further clarifies the intended use.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to execute a deployed function) and includes a concrete example showing how to construct the function_name and method. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, relying on sibling tool names to imply when not to use it. This is a minor gap but not misleading.

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