get_service_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions real-time retrieval and state information but does not explicitly declare the tool as read-only or discuss side effects, permissions, or error behavior beyond a generic failure message.

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 sections and bullet points but is somewhat verbose, repeating concepts like 'status' and 'state'. It could be more concise without losing clarity.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose and parameter adequately. However, it does not address when to use this tool versus similar siblings (e.g., get_service_details), and the output description is vague despite an output schema being present.

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 parameter service_name is clearly described with examples (e.g., 'HDFS', 'YARN', 'HBASE'), adding practical value beyond the schema which lacks a description field. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well.

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 status information for a specific service in an Ambari cluster, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_service_details or get_cluster_services by focusing on real-time status and state.

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 includes 'Required Usage Scenarios' such as when users ask about specific service status, troubleshooting, and monitoring. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool over others like get_service_details.

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