Get Services

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'requires a service_type parameter', which is useful context not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'available services' entails, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, consisting of two sentences that convey the purpose and a key requirement. There's no unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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 has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description doesn't need to cover safety or return values. However, with 1 parameter at 0% schema coverage and no usage guidelines, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth for effective tool invocation in context.

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 the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'service_type' as a required parameter, adding some meaning, but it doesn't explain what 'service_type' is, its format, or how it affects retrieval. With 1 parameter and low coverage, this is insufficient compensation.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('available services in Cisco NSO'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_service_types', which appears to be a closely related operation, so it doesn't achieve full 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_service_types' or other sibling tools. It only mentions a required parameter, which doesn't help the agent understand the appropriate context or exclusions for tool selection.

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