services_call_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool calls a service, which implies mutation but does not disclose idempotency, error handling, authorization needs, or side effects beyond the example. More detail on behavioral traits is needed.

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 sentence plus an example, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful example, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 presence of an output schema (handling return values) and many sibling tools for specific services, the description is largely complete for a generic caller. It could elaborate on scope (e.g., 'all domains and services') but the example covers the most common use case.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds value by providing an example that illustrates the 'data' parameter format and how domain/service pair works. However, it does not explain all possible uses of the parameters, leaving gaps for non-light services.

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 tool's purpose: 'Call any Home Assistant service.' It gives a concrete example (domain='light', service='turn_on') and the verb 'call' plus 'any service' distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific services.

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 the tool can be used for any service but does not explicitly state when to use this generic tool versus specific siblings like services_set_light_color. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the sibling list.

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