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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not reiterate these. It adds minimal context beyond the annotations, only specifying that the function lists 'deployed' functions. For a simple read-only list operation, this is acceptable, but no additional behavior (e.g., pagination, result format) is disclosed.

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 a single, straightforward sentence: 'List all deployed serverless functions.' It is front-loaded with the action verb and clearly states the object. No unnecessary words or redundancy are present, making it highly concise.

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 no-parameter list tool, the description is sufficient to understand its core purpose. However, it does not mention the return format or any filtering capabilities (which are none). Given the absence of an output schema, a brief note on what the list returns might be expected, but the tool's simplicity makes the description reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter information for the description to enhance. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately represents the operation without needing to discuss parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a precise resource 'deployed serverless functions', making it clear what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like scalix_compute_list and scalix_run_list by naming 'serverless functions' specifically. The scope 'all' is also explicit, leaving no ambiguity about its target.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of several list-style siblings (e.g., scalix_compute_list, scalix_run_list, scalix_project_list), an agent may not know which list tool to choose without further context. The context is implied by the name, but there is no explicit comparison or exclusion.

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