zos_connect_get_service_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by stating the output includes the OpenAPI specification, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only status or mention any prerequisites or potential errors, leaving some gaps in 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, succinct sentence of 14 words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed information') and immediately clarifies the scope ('including its OpenAPI specification'). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains both the general purpose (detailed info) and the specific output (OpenAPI specification), which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it does not mention any usage limitations or explicitly differentiate from list_services, which would make it fully complete.

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 input schema already has a full description for the only parameter (service_name: 'Name of the z/OS Connect service'), providing 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or constraints for this parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb action ('Get') and the specific resource ('detailed information about a z/OS Connect service') along with a key output detail ('including its OpenAPI specification'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zos_connect_list_services (list) and zos_connect_call_service (call) by focusing on retrieval of detailed spec info for a single service.

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 implies this tool is for obtaining detailed service information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. For example, it could have said 'Use this instead of zos_connect_list_services when you need the OpenAPI specification.' Without such guidance, the usage context is only implied.

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