win_get_running_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state that credentials must be configured first, what transport/permissions are needed, whether the call is read-only (implied but unstated), or what form the service list takes.

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?

A single short sentence with the key noun front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves gaps addressed elsewhere in the scoring.

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 remote-host query with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should mention the credential/host-access prerequisite and roughly what comes back. As written, an agent knows the intent but not whether it can safely call it.

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% and the single parameter (hostname) has no documented format, FQDN vs NetBIOS vs IP. The phrase 'Windows host' hints at the parameter's role but adds no usable syntax detail for the agent to construct a valid call.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('running services') scoped to a Windows host. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like win_get_disk_space and win_get_system_info by resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus win_get_system_info or win_execute_powershell for service inspection. No prerequisites mentioned, despite win_setup_credentials being a sibling that presumably gates access to the host.

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