List Services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context that the result is bounded and includes states, but does not disclose the default bound, pagination, or truncation behavior.

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 tight sentence with the key scoping adjectives ('bounded', 'their states') front-loaded. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the cross-platform (Windows/systemd) scope is stated. The only real gap is the undocumented default for the limit parameter.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry it. 'Bounded number' loosely maps to the 'limit' parameter (schema constrains it to 1-300) but no default value or practical cap guidance is given.

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?

Names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Windows services or systemd services and their states'), making the platform scope clear. It distinguishes itself from 'service_status' only implicitly (plural listing vs. single-service inspection), so sibling differentiation is not explicit.

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 a bulk-enumeration use case but never states when to call this versus 'service_status' for a single service, nor any prerequisites. Usage is left to be inferred from the plural phrasing.

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