cf_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only lookup, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether it errors on a missing instance, or whether the result size/fields are bounded.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it spends its one sentence on purpose only, leaving no room for the missing usage or behavior context.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this is minimally adequate. With no output schema, though, the description does not hint at what 'detailed information' contains, which would have helped the agent decide whether to call this or a sibling.

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 100% and the description adds nothing about instanceName, so the schema already does all the work. With a single fully-documented parameter, 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (detailed information about a service instance), which separates it adequately from the broader cf_services listing. However, it never names or contrasts with the obvious sibling cf_services, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus cf_services, cf_app, or cf_get_target, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., a logged-in/targeted session). The agent must infer that this is the single-instance detail lookup by name alone.

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