dev_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs local detection, checks whether services are running/listening, and provides evidence, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not state that it has no side effects, does not start services, or what happens if services are missing. It is more transparent than a bare 'detect services' but still lacks explicit safety details.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Local service detection') and packs in the three key outputs (needed services, running status, evidence). There is no filler or irrelevant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

The output schema exists (though not detailed here), so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential scope: which services, whether running, and evidence. It omits explicit clarification of the 'workspace' parameter and any limitations, but for a detection tool with a single optional parameter, it is close to 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 schema has one parameter 'workspace' with a default of '.' and zero description coverage (0%). The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that it refers to the project directory. The name and default give some hint, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, and the schema itself provides no description.

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 states a specific verb ('detection') and resource ('services'): it identifies which services (Postgres, Redis, compose-defined) the project needs, whether they are running, and provides evidence. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dev_dependencies (dependencies) or dev_health (health status).

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the title and sibling names that this is about service detection, but there is no explicit routing or 'use this when' statement.

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