get_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, required permissions, or behavior when the service id is unknown. The listed fields weakly imply a read operation, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

One compact fragment with no filler, and the most useful information (what comes back) is up front. It loses a point for being a fragment with no verb, which reads more like a field list than a definition.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is genuinely useful compensation. However, with zero annotations it still omits permission requirements and failure behavior, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage including the `project.service` format example, so the schema does the work. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is already structured, which is the baseline case for full coverage.

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 is a noun fragment listing the payload ('spec, live status, replicas, domains, env var names and last deploy') rather than a verb+resource statement, so the retrieval action is only implied. It does implicitly distinguish itself from list_services and get_project by scoping to a single service's internals, but the agent has to infer that.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_project, list_services, or list_deploys, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the field list.

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