list_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (size, offset, nextOffset) and output structure, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies it).

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the detailed OUTPUT section (while informative) is quite lengthy and could be streamlined since there's no output schema - this information is valuable but makes the description less concise than ideal.

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 list operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides substantial context including pagination details and comprehensive output structure. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (auth, errors, rate limits) which would be needed for full completeness, but it covers the core functionality well.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description repeats parameter information but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, edge cases, or relationship explanations). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all services associated with a control plane'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_control_planes and list_routes by focusing specifically on services within a control plane context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_control_planes or list_routes. It mentions a related tool (list-control-planes) in the schema but not in the description itself, and offers no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical workflows.

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