Galaxy Brain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it's a listing operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't address potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making this an excellent example of conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details about the return format, pagination, or how the listed services relate to 'execute_batch'. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what information is returned and how to use it.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, which is correct since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema handles the documentation.

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: 'List available services and their methods for execute_batch'. It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('available services and their methods'), and context ('for execute_batch'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_plans' or 'list_sessions', which prevents a perfect score.

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 minimal usage guidance by mentioning 'for execute_batch', which implies this tool is used to discover services before batch execution. However, it lacks explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_single' or 'generate_plan', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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