list_services

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'discovered via server reflection' which hints at dynamic discovery, but does not clarify what happens if no endpoint is connected (e.g., empty list vs error), whether results are cached, or any performance implications. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action and resource, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the source ('server reflection') and scope ('all gRPC services'). However, it could mention the return format (e.g., list of service names) or error cases (e.g., not connected). Overall adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, but none is needed. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing missing.

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 uses the verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'gRPC services discovered via server reflection on the connected endpoint'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_service_descriptor (which retrieves details for a specific service) and list_methods (which lists methods within a service).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., a connected endpoint) or that it only works after connect_endpoint has been called. The context of sibling tools implies differentiation but the description fails to make it explicit.

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