get_service_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it retrieves data and returns formatted output or errors, implying read-only behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, idempotency, or potential side effects, making it adequate but not complete.

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 with clear sections including role, core functions, required scenarios, args, and returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one parameter) and presence of output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and return format adequately. It mentions failure behavior. A slight gap is not discussing authentication or permissions, but overall it is comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by specifying service_name with examples (e.g., 'HDFS', 'YARN'). This goes beyond the schema's bare property type, compensating for the lack of schema-level 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 it retrieves detailed components information for a specific service in the Ambari cluster. The verb 'retrieves' and resource 'components information' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like get_service_details by focusing on component-level details.

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 'Required Usage Scenarios' section provides explicit guidance on when to use, such as when users request component details or troubleshooting health. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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