list_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'for the authenticated developer' gives context about authorization scope, but no details about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return structure are disclosed. For a simple listing tool this is acceptable, but it is not rich in behavioral context.

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 (12 words) that immediately states the action and scope. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains 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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and scope. It omits explicit mention of return value details, but for a simple 'list all' operation the output is self-evident. Slightly more detail (e.g., pagination or result format) could make it more complete, but it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and there is nothing missing.

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 ('services configured in Clavis'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like call_service, get_credentials, and check_credential_status. It also clarifies scope ('for the authenticated developer'), making the purpose explicit.

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 usage (when you need to enumerate services) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or caveats. Sibling names suggest different operations, but the description itself does not address them.

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