get_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'verified command' implying safety, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, error conditions, or permission requirements. The description lacks sufficient behavioral detail.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It directly conveys the tool's action and the method used.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description is partially complete. However, it does not explain what 'services' are returned (e.g., list of names, status details) or any prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected). The description could provide more context about the output format or typical use cases.

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?

The input schema has no properties, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no parameters to document, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate (no missing information).

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 tool retrieves CPE services using a specific command ('exec services'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_command (which executes arbitrary commands) and discover_commands (which lists available commands).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_command or get_system_info. It mentions a 'verified command' but does not explain when this is appropriate or when other tools might be better.

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