prd_list_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation listing services, but does not disclose potential issues like empty results, pagination, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences, one for purpose and one for usage, with no fluff. Front-loaded with key information.

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 tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage adequately. Missing details on error handling or output format, but not critical.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions (verbose, category) without adding significant new context beyond their function.

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?

Clearly states it lists AINative products/services with specific fields (descriptions, categories, etc.) and explicitly says when to use it (before writing a PRD). Distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on services rather than templates or API refs.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before writing a PRD' which provides clear use context. However, does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools like prd_get_api_catalog or prd_list_templates, so lacks exclusions.

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