arr_get_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool lists 'configured and available' services, but doesn't disclose what the output looks like (e.g., array of names, objects with status). Basic behavioral info is present, but more detail on output format would improve score.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no siblings, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when to call it, though slightly more detail on the return value would be beneficial.

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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter info but none is needed. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('*ARR services'), clearly stating what the tool does. It is unambiguous and actionable, with no need for sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage context (when you need to know which ARR services are configured and available). With no siblings, explicit guidance isn't critical, but a brief 'use this to check service availability' would enhance clarity.

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