arr_services

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

With no annotations, the description does add one genuinely useful disclosure: 'Shows addresses only, never keys,' which reassures about secret exposure. However, it doesn't explicitly state the operation is read-only (only implied by 'List') or note any auth requirements.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the security caveat appended where it matters.

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?

A zero-param read tool with an output schema, so return-value detail is unnecessary; the description covers scope and the key safety caveat. Only the read-only/auth framing is left implicit.

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?

Zero parameters, so there are no semantics to document; baseline applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call.

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 ('List') and resource ('services set up') and enumerates the covered service types, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly differentiate against siblings like arr_status or arr_calendar, which keeps it short of a 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery/configuration-enumeration call preceding arr_add or arr_call, but the description never says when to use it versus arr_status or what a prerequisite relationship is.

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