service_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. The '[READ]' prefix signals a safe read operation, and the parameter details explain accepted formats. However, it doesn't state whether errors are raised for unknown names or describe the response structure, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise, with a clear purpose line and a compact args list. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting improves scannability.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main usage and parameters. It could be more explicit about what 'full detail' includes and error handling, but it's sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema provides no descriptions, but the description explains name as the service name across three proxy formats and clarifies the optional target and its default behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic detail.

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 it retrieves 'One service/backend's full detail by name', with a specific verb and resource. It also references 'from list_services', distinguishing it from listing tools. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_services or route_detail.

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 instructs that names come from 'list_services', implying a workflow order. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context and 'full detail' scope make the use case clear. A brief mention of when not to use it would improve it.

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