service_list

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it notes that one entry per service represents the desired state (not the actual tasks), and explains the `managed_only` label behavior. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 efficiently organized with an initial one-line summary, then detailed args and returns in a clear format. Every sentence contributes necessary information without fluff.

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 minimal schema and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, alternatives, parameter semantics, and return format (list of full service documents), making it sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both `filters` (attributes id, name, label, mode) and `managed_only` (filters on docker-mcp-server.managed label, combines with other filters). This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types.

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 'List swarm services' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning `service_ps` for tasks and `stack_services` for grouping by stack, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does relative to others.

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 prerequisite ('Must run against a swarm manager') and names alternatives (`service_ps` and `stack_services`) for different use cases, giving clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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