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 useful behavioral context: the requirement to run against a swarm manager, and that the response includes desired-state spec, rollout status, and UpdateStatus during rolling updates. No contradictions.

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: a one-sentence purpose, then prerequisites and alternatives, then labeled args and returns. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or redundancy beyond a minor mention of desired-state spec in both the intro and returns, which is acceptable.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (full service document with key fields). It covers prerequisites, alternatives, parameters, and behavioral nuances, making it complete for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'id_or_name - The service id or name' and 'insert_defaults - Merge default values into the output', adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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?

Description opens with 'Get a swarm service by id or name,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from service_ps by clarifying it returns desired-state spec and rollout status, not running tasks, and points to alternatives for that purpose.

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?

Explicitly states 'Must run against a swarm manager' and provides clear alternative guidance: use `service_ps` or the `service-tasks://` resource for running tasks. This is explicit when-to-use and alternatives guidance.

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