service_list

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds valuable behavioral context: with_start_time grows the number of commands with service count and is off by default, and the output includes warnings. This meaningfully exceeds what annotations and schema alone provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, then a short parameter list with defaults/costs, then the return structure. Every section earns its place and there is no padding or redundant schema repetition.

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 read-only listing tool with three optional parameters, the description covers purpose, all parameter semantics, performance implications, and output shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter semantics depend entirely on the description. It fully explains all three parameters: case-insensitive substring filtering, running-only filtering, and with_start_time including its performance cost and default behavior. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 opening sentence states '列出路由器上的服务及其运行状态' (list services and their running status on the router), a clear verb+resource description. The plural 'services' separates it from the more specific service_status sibling, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 explains options such as name_filter, running_only, and with_start_time, and even warns about the command-count cost of with_start_time, giving some invocation guidance. It does not explicitly advise when to choose service_list over service_status or service_logs, so usage context is only implied.

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