list_services

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default return set (interfaces only) and what includeDelegate adds, but says nothing about ordering, result volume, or return shape, and only implies read-only via the verb 'List'.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the scope and the default-return behavior front-loaded before the opt-in flag. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only lister with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what it lists, from where, and the default versus opt-in result set. The remaining gap is sibling routing among list_enums/list_namespaces/search, which is not addressed.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only restates the includeDelegate default. It adds minor meaning ('event-delegate types') but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list DI-injectable services) and pins the exact source namespace (Dalamud.Plugin.Services), which distinguishes it from generic listing siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_enums or list_namespaces, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 when to use it ('the primary namespace for plugin authors') and explains the includeDelegate switch, but never states when to prefer this over search, search_members, or list_namespaces. Usage is left to inference.

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