list_services

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

Without annotations, the description implicitly indicates a read-only operation by listing returned fields (state, start mode, account) and parameter effects. It does not explicitly state side-effect safety but the read-only nature is clear from context.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. No redundant sentences, and information is front-loaded.

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?

Covers all parameters and the return information (state, start mode, account). With an output schema present, the lack of detailed return structure is acceptable. Minor omission: no mention of potential limits or ordering.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's values and behavior, e.g., state options 'Running', 'Stopped', and name_filter described as substring match. With 0% schema coverage, this is essential and well done.

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 it lists Windows services with state, start mode, and account, which is specific and distinct from siblings like list_drivers or list_processes. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_drivers or list_processes. The description is purely functional, lacking context about preferred use cases or exclusions.

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