perseus_services

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

Annotations already include 'destructiveHint: true', and the description adds that the tool may make network calls and execute shell commands, with side effects depending on configuration. This goes beyond annotations by specifying the nature of destructive actions. However, it does not detail what exactly could be destroyed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the types of services checked and side effects. Some additional details about how the 'args' parameter influences the check could improve completeness, but it is largely sufficient.

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 one parameter 'args' described as 'Arguments for @services directive'. The description does not add further meaning about this parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose as health-checking all services in the workspace context, mentioning specific service types (HTTP endpoints, Docker containers, shell commands). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'perseus_get_health', which might have a similar function, so it is clear but not uniquely distinguished.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use to verify the environment is healthy before starting work.' It also warns about side effects (network calls, shell commands) and that they depend on configuration. No guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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