get_services

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses the return content (configured services plus effective write permissions) and asserts 'no secrets', telling the agent it can call this without credential-leak concerns and that the response is about permissions rather than sensitive data.

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, front-loaded clause with zero wasted words; the resource is named first and the scope caveat follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description must at least characterize the return, which it does ('configured services and effective write permissions'). It does not sketch the shape of the response or ordering, but for a no-argument inventory read with rich safety annotations, it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; per the rubric a 0-parameter tool gets the baseline of 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus specific resource ('configured services and effective write permissions'), with a clarifying scope note ('no secrets'). The siblings (request_media, ping, search_media, get_request) are unrelated in subject matter, so no disambiguation is needed and the purpose reads unambiguously.

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?

Usage is only implied — it is evidently the service-inventory read used when an agent needs to know what services exist and what write rights it has. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or naming of an alternative tool, so guidance stays at the minimum-viable level.

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