get_lambda_overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it excels: it states that environment variable values are never returned, that recentThrottles/recentErrors are conditional on runtime signals, that costSignal is a config-level heuristic without billing API involvement, and that unresolvedLink has specific reason values. These disclose important behavioral edges beyond the basic return type.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: output scope, usage triggers, runtime signal behavior, cost heuristic, and unresolvedLink semantics. It is longer than average, but that length is justified by the number of non-obvious behaviors that need disclosure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the agent will receive. It covers the return fields, conditional signals, edge cases like unresolvedLink, and the freshness semantics through the schema description. For a read-only overview tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the single optional parameter maxAgeSeconds is already thoroughly documented in the schema, including advisory semantics and when to pass small values. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pairing, 'Returns all Lambda functions,' and enumerates specific returned fields: runtime, memory, timeout, environment variable key names, and event source triggers. It also distinguishes itself from analyze_function by noting it provides trigger event shapes 'without running analyze_function.' This makes the tool's scope immediately identifiable.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: auditing Lambda configuration for default memory or high timeouts, and retrieving trigger event shapes without invoking analyze_function. It names a concrete sibling alternative and the condition that favors this tool, giving an agent clear routing information.

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