service_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects). It merely confirms the read-only nature.

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 highly concise, using a front-loaded single sentence for purpose followed by a clear args/returns list. Every line earns its place with no 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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and parameters, it lacks details about the return value (e.g., typical fields in the dict) and the exact behavior of insert_defaults. Given no output schema, more context would help the agent understand the tool's output.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing brief but meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'id_or_name - The service id or name' and 'insert_defaults - Merge default values into the output.' This adds value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 'Get a swarm service by id or name,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (swarm service). This differentiates it from other inspect tools for different Docker objects (e.g., container_inspect, network_inspect).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be used.

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