get_service_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns CPU and memory metrics (a read operation) and implies no destructive side effects. However, it does not mention any potential limitations such as requiring the container to be active or whether the metrics are real-time or cached.

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 concise sentence in Portuguese that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key information (what it returns) and wastes no words.

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 read tool with no output schema and two well-described parameters, the description is complete. It clearly states the input (project and service names) and output (CPU and memory metrics). Given the sibling tools, it adequately differentiates itself.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with both parameters ('projectName' and 'serviceName') described as 'Nome do projeto' and 'Nome do serviço'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that the tool returns metrics for a specific service. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb (returns), the resource (metrics of a specific service), and the specific metrics (CPU and memory of the container). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_docker_stats or get_system_stats by focusing on a single service's container metrics.

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 implies the tool is used when you need CPU and memory metrics for a specific service, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_docker_stats, get_system_stats) or any prerequisites like the service being running. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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