list_gcp_services

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (listing), the input, and the return value, but omits details such as authentication requirements, pagination, or error behavior. For a read-only list operation, this is adequate but minimal.

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 concise docstring with a one-sentence summary, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no fluff.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers the function, the parameter, and the return value. It lacks advanced context like permissions or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema only defines project_id as a string without description. The description adds meaning by stating 'The ID of the GCP project to list services for', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond what the schema provides.

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 'List enabled services/APIs in a GCP project' using a specific verb and resource. The term 'enabled services/APIs' distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_gcp_projects, which lists projects.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is clear from the name and description, so usage is implicitly understood. With many sibling list tools, a note differentiating it from list_gcp_projects or list_assets would be helpful.

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