list_angular_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, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether a project must be loaded, the output format, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects or requirements.

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, concise sentence that states the verb and resource without any fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description conveys the core function. While it could mention that the project must be loaded and that it returns all @Injectable-decorated classes, the schema already hints at the project requirement and the tool's nature makes the return type predictable (a list of services). Overall, it is adequate but not rich.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'name' parameter ('Name or path of the loaded project'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Lists' and a clear resource '@Injectable services', which unambiguously identifies it as a tool for enumerating Angular injectable services. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_angular_components and list_angular_routes by targeting a distinct resource type.

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. It does not mention context, prerequisites (e.g., loaded project), or point to any sibling tools for other resource types. The usage is only implied by the name and description.

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