get_service

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read operation (no mutation) and specifies returned data. However, it does not mention safety guarantees, side effects, or any behavioral traits like pagination or performance implications.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes an illustrative example, and avoids extraneous words. Every element serves a purpose.

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 get-by-slug tool with one parameter and an output schema, this description is complete. It states the key identifier and outlines the core response data (status, categories, component overview), which is sufficient given the output schema's existence.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds an example value (e.g., 'github'), clarifying the expected format. However, it does not explain what a slug is or provide constraints on input (e.g., required uniqueness). The example helps but is minimal.

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 action (get), resource (catalog service summary), identifier (slug), and included data (status, categories, component overview). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_services_summary (list) and get_service_live_status (live status) by focusing on summary retrieval.

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 implies usage when a service summary is needed by slug but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to similar tools are mentioned, which is a gap given the large sibling list.

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