kura_get_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get all OSGi services' without stating that it is read-only, what the return format is, whether it requires special permissions, or any potential side effects. This is insufficient for a transparent contract.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool, though it is also minimal in content. The structure is effective.

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?

The tool is simple but lacks an output schema, so the description should clarify expected return values or behavior. It does not mention whether the response is a list of service names, objects, or other details. The absence of usage guidance also leaves the agent under-informed, making the description incomplete for a real deployment.

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 100% with the 'instance' parameter clearly documented via enum and description. The tool description adds 'from a Kura instance' which echoes the schema but does not introduce new meaning. This meets the baseline 3 for well-documented schema parameters.

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 the action ('Get all OSGi services') and the resource ('Kura instance'), making it distinct from sibling tools like kura_get_configurations and kura_get_packages. The verb 'Get' and specific resource type provide unambiguous 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, preferred use cases, or relationships with sibling getter tools, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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