List TacticalRMM Agent Services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description repeats read-only status and adds the endpoint path, which is a minor implementation detail. No additional behavioral traits (pagination, response format specifics) are disclosed beyond the schema.

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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, the second sentence 'This tool is read-only' is redundant given the readOnlyHint annotation, so it doesn't fully earn 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 simple read-only list tool, the description states the resource and endpoint. However, with no output schema, it doesn't describe the response structure (e.g., service fields), which would be helpful. Given the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, it's reasonably complete but not comprehensive.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, including defaults and constraints. The description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: 'Windows service inventory for an agent' plus the API path '/services/<agent_id>/'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_agent_software or list_agent_checks.

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 the use case (listing services for a specific agent) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention exclusions. It provides clear context but no alternative guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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