list_log_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It warns about pagination, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it omits details like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The warning is helpful but not comprehensive for a mutation-free tool.

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 extremely concise: one short sentence with a clear warning prefix. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy.

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?

The tool is straightforward (list operation), and the description, combined with the fully documented schema, covers the core purpose and pagination behavior. It lacks an explanation of the return format (since no output schema) but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions pagination generally but does not explain limit/cursor syntax or behavior. The schema_file parameter is described in the schema with a required path confirmation, but no elaboration in the description.

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 returns a list of all accessible logging services, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('logging services'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_log_service, get_log_service_details, delete_log_service, and update_log_service by focusing on listing.

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 alerts users that results are paginated, a key usage hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_log_service_details for a single service. The context is mostly implied through the tool name and sibling differentiation.

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