service_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the swarm manager requirement and that it returns desired-state spec and rollout status. It doesn't delve into edge cases or error conditions, but given the annotation coverage, this is sufficient.

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 well-structured with a concise one-line purpose, usage guidance, and a clear args/returns breakdown. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes it easy to parse.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return value ('full service document') and its notable fields. It also provides alternatives for related tasks, making it complete for a read-only inspect tool.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining 'id_or_name - The service id or name' and 'insert_defaults - Merge default values into the output', making both parameters clear.

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' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning service_ps for running tasks, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Must run against a swarm manager' and 'for the actually-running tasks use service_ps, or the service-tasks:// resource'. This tells when to use the tool and when to use alternatives.

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