getService

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 only says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens if the service is not found. It fails to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is free of unnecessary words and gets straight to the point.

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 has three parameters (one optional), no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the optional parameter, how this tool interacts with other service-related tools, or any edge cases. The description is not complete enough for an agent to know when and how to use it correctly beyond the most basic reading.

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 description adds meaning for two parameters (app_handle and service_handle) by indicating they are used to identify the service within an app. However, it does not explain the optional account_handle parameter, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool's function: to get a service by handle within a specific app. It uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('service'), and specifies the scope ('within a specific app'), which distinguishes it from siblings like listServices or scaleService.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listServices or scaleService. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is that you need a specific service handle, but this is not articulated as guidance.

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