zos_connect_list_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions the environment configuration requirement, which is useful, but it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences each add value: one states the purpose, the other states a critical prerequisite. 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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It identifies the resource and environment requirement. However, it could briefly mention what a successful response contains (e.g., list of service names), since there is no output schema to infer this from.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific details, as none are needed.

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') and resource ('available z/OS Connect services') with a clarifying parenthetical ('RESTful APIs to mainframe programs'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like zos_connect_get_service_info and zos_connect_call_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 clearly states a prerequisite: ZOS_CONNECT_URL must be configured. This gives context on when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_service_info for individual service details.

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