Compute Services List Services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The text adds the useful detail that each row carries quoted_name and conditionally quoted_qualified_name, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result limits.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased but does carry real information about returned columns.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return columns is optional rather than required, and the safety profile is annotation-covered. The missing pieces are the unexplained `pattern` filter and any guidance on narrowing results by database/schema, which matter for a list tool with three optional parameters.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description adds no filtering semantics at all. The most important gap is `pattern`, which has no description in the schema and is never mentioned in the text, leaving its matching behavior (regex? glob? LIKE?) completely unknown.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — listing container services on SPCS compute pools — which separates it from compute_services_list_compute_pools and compute_services_list_streamlits. It stops short of naming the alternative it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 statement of when to use this versus a sibling list tool, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of how the optional pattern/database/schema_name filters change the result set. The reader must infer all of this from the schema alone.

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