get_cluster_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses real-time retrieval via Ambari REST API, return content (service names, state, cluster info, links, visual indicators), and success/failure format. However, it is verbose and includes ambiguous 'visual indicators' without elaboration. Otherwise, it is adequately transparent.

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 structured with clear sections (Tool Role, Core Functions, Scenarios) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is lengthy and repeats the concept of 'service list with status' multiple times. It earns its place but could be more concise.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values but does so explicitly. It also provides usage and prohibition scenarios, making the tool's context complete for an agent. No gaps are evident.

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 are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter semantics because none exist, so it meets the baseline without needing compensation.

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 retrieves the list of services with status in an Ambari cluster. It specifies 'all running services' and 'basic status information,' and the 'Required Usage Scenarios' and 'Prohibited Scenarios' effectively distinguish this tool from siblings like get_service_details and get_service_status.

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 'Required Usage Scenarios' and 'Absolutely Prohibited Scenarios,' offering clear guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., when users mention 'service list') and when not to (e.g., general Hadoop questions, service installation). This directly helps the agent decide among siblings.

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