Get Services

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating it's a safe read operation. The description adds that it retrieves services and requires a parameter, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'available services' entails (e.g., active, configured). With annotations covering safety, the description adds minimal context, warranting a baseline score.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and requirement. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from parameter details for 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?

Given the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (per context signals), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter need adequately. However, with 0% schema coverage and no details on output or behavioral nuances, it's not fully complete but meets minimal expectations with structured support.

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%, with one required parameter documented only as 'params' with additionalProperties. The description specifies 'service_type' as a required parameter, adding meaning beyond the generic schema. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's format, constraints, or how it filters services, leaving significant gaps given the low schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'available services in Cisco NSO', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_service_types', which might retrieve service type metadata rather than services themselves, leaving some ambiguity.

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 mentions that it 'Requires a 'service_type' parameter', which provides a basic prerequisite but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_service_types' or other sibling tools. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool recommendations.

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