roboshadow_get_device_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation and describes the output content, but it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, response shape, or any operational caveats. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the relevant data fields. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 per-device list tool, the description conveys the core purpose and output scope. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose it over related device report tools and does not mention result pagination or response expectations, leaving some contextual gaps given there is no output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds context about what the returned data covers but does not add meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List Windows services on one device.' It also names concrete included fields (start mode, running state, unquoted-path vulnerability), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling device-focused tools like roboshadow_get_device_applications or roboshadow_get_device_antivirus.

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 phrase 'on one device' gives clear context that this is a per-device service listing tool, which helps an agent select it for per-device service queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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