portainer_services_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, safety guarantees, or error conditions (e.g., if the endpoint is not a Swarm). The lack of such disclosure leaves the agent guessing about potential impacts.

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 (two sentences) and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded. The additional explanation about services vs. tasks and cron-driven services adds useful context without becoming verbose. It slightly exceeds minimalism but remains efficient.

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 description mentions the output concept (replica counts) and a special case (cron-driven services), providing enough context for typical usage. It does not address edge cases like non-Swarm endpoints or error handling, but given the output schema exists and the core purpose is clear, it is largely complete for common scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It does not describe 'endpoint_id' or 'stack_filter' at all; only the parameter names are given. While the names are self-explanatory to an experienced user, the description provides no details on expected formats, semantics, or interaction between the parameters, leaving significant room for misinterpretation.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('Swarm services') with an outcome ('running/desired replica counts'). It differentiates from sibling tools by explaining the primary view for services and contrasting with containers as tasks, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context on when to use this tool — it is the primary view for Swarm services, and it notes the special case of cron-driven services. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives like service_inspect or service_tasks, though the context implies it.

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