list_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool lists services; it does not disclose whether folder scopes results, whether the response is paginated, or what happens when the source lacks a catalog. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a read tool.

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 a single sentence with no filler, and the main scope is front-loaded. However, the brevity partly reflects missing behavioral and parameter detail rather than efficient compression of complete information.

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?

With two parameters, no annotations, and a set of sibling tools, the description leaves important gaps: folder semantics, source format, and appropriate usage relative to alternatives. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, but the description is still incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% and the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description gives partial semantics for 'source' (a source with an ArcGIS catalog) but says nothing about 'folder,' its default, or its effect on the results. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('services published by a source that has a catalog (ArcGIS)'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_service that focus on a single service or layer. It could be more explicit in contrasting with those siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as describe_service or query_layer. The only contextual hint is 'source that has a catalog (ArcGIS),' which implies a prerequisite but does not explain how to identify such a source or what to do after listing.

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