service_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool lists services, finds IDs, and checks status, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns paginated results. It adds some context (e.g., overview purpose) but lacks details on error handling or output format.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by bullet-point sections for usage, prerequisites, and related tools. Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and relationships, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication or output format, which would be helpful since no annotations or output schema exist. It's sufficient but has minor gaps.

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%, with the single parameter 'projectId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or constraints), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('List all services') and resource ('in a specific Railway project'), distinguishing it from siblings like service_info (detailed info), service_create_* (creation), and service_delete (deletion). It explicitly mentions the scope ('all services') and target ('specific Railway project'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance with a 'Best for' section listing three use cases, prerequisites ('project_list'), next steps ('service_info, deployment_list'), and related tools ('project_info, variable_list'). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using service_info for details or project_list as a prerequisite.

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