get_service_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions detecting and reporting failures, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., read-only nature), authentication needs, or rate limits. It does state the output format, but could be more transparent about behavior.

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 bullet points and a clear use-case statement. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Slightly verbose with the 'Functions:' list, but every sentence adds value. Appropriate length.

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 an existing output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return format ('JSON format with service details and health summary'). However, it does not detail the specific fields, which might be needed for call chaining. Still, it is sufficiently complete for a simple tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it confirms the tool takes no arguments, matching the schema. No additional semantic value needed.

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 explicitly states the tool provides status and health check information for each OpenStack service, listing specific functions like checking active status and API responsiveness. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_instances_by_status, get_availability_zones) by targeting OpenStack services specifically.

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 use cases: 'Use when user requests service status, API status, health checks, or service troubleshooting.' This helps the agent decide when to invoke, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools.

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