show_nokia_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral context. It mentions the tool is read-only (viewing) and device-specific, but does not disclose permissions needed, rate limits, or output behavior beyond a vague 'summary'. The description adds minimal value over the tool name.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The use of 'Args:' is unnecessary but not detrimental. It avoids verbosity and every sentence adds information, though the structure could be tighter (e.g., merging the Nokia-specific lines).

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 (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema (which presumably details return values), the description provides a minimally adequate overview. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., device reachability) or what constitutes a 'summary'. For a networking tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds a brief note that the 'device' parameter is a 'Name of a Nokia SR OS device', which clarifies its purpose but not its format or constraints. For a single required parameter, this is marginally helpful but not thorough.

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 shows a Nokia SR OS service summary, mentioning specific service types (VPRN, VPLS, SAP) and that it lists all configured services. This helps distinguish it from sibling tools like show_interfaces or show_mac_table. However, it could be more specific about what 'summary' includes (e.g., status, identifiers).

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 specifies it is Nokia SR OS-specific and for viewing services, implying use when such information is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names for similar queries (e.g., show_interfaces for interface details). The guidance is adequate but not comprehensive.

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