get_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which is clear, but lacks information on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what specific details are returned beyond 'deployments and variables'. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific Railway service') and specifies key inclusions ('including deployments and variables'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's moderate complexity (retrieving service details with no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavioral traits. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it at least provides a clear starting point.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'serviceId' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't add value here.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Railway service details', specifying what information is retrieved (details including deployments and variables). It distinguishes from siblings like get_project/get_projects by focusing on a specific service rather than projects. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other service-related tools like update_service_variable.

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 usage when needing service details, deployments, and variables, which differentiates it from siblings that handle deployments (cancel_deployment, restart_deployment) or variables (delete_service_variable, update_service_variable). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_project (which might include service info) or clear exclusions for alternative scenarios.

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