service_list

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

The description explicitly begins with '[READ]', disclosing read-only behavior, and lists the returned fields (name, state, enable). While it does not cover error handling or side effects, for a read-only list with no annotations, this is meaningful disclosure.

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 two compact sentences: one for purpose and one for the argument. It is front-loaded with the READ marker and functional summary, with no filler or redundancy.

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 low complexity (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, returned fields, and parameter semantics. It does not need to explain return value structure beyond what it already lists.

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 parameter 'target' is explained as 'TrueNAS target name from config; omit to use the default', adding practical usage detail that the schema lacks. The schema only lists type and default, so the description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clear resource ('system services') and states the output scope ('name, state (RUNNING/STOPPED), enable'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like service_restart and other list tools.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The verb 'List' implies a read query, but the description does not mention when to prefer this over other tools or reference alternatives like service_restart.

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